Ontario Liberal Party Goes Full Sexist

https://globalnews.ca/news/8405943/ont-liberals-women-only-candidate-ridings/

This is scary. They are not currently in power but have been in the past and could be again. They have now announced blatantly sexist policy for nomination.

I wonder how they will handle trans women running.

 

I wonder what happens if in the next election none of these sexism nominations get elected into office. Will the party realize it over reached with its sexism?

And I wonder what happens to any of the women who do get elected under this sexist nomination policy. Even if they would have been nominated anyway, will they forever be suspected as a token?

 

You’d think they’d look across the border, see Harris, and realize check boxes aren’t the answer.

 

No it isn't. It really isn't.

I didn't say it was. I said it would be wrong to do, and it would. I thought you'd agree with that much.

It could be and probably is, yes. It also could be and probably is that women are less interested in the work. It also could be and probably is that there are social values, norms, etc, some of which many women value that leads to such numbers.

We have gotten rid of most if not all of the actual laws preventing women from running for office. There may be some that were missed, and there may be and likely are some systemic issues that are still unfair and need to be identified and addressed. That is where energy should be properly spent.

Pushing prejudiced views about people due to their gender, having different standards for, or outright banning people from nominations regardless of merit and solely because of their gender, is the opposite of progress on this.

 

Women will never get the respect they deserve of rules have to be bent for them.

 

My point is that you added that as a total fabrication. Then, you tried to make a point out of it. That's not a legitimate argument style.

Suggesting that there just aren't enough women interested in leadership can't be supported.

It's not just laws. In fact, it may not be laws at all.

It IS how support is provided. As you point out in your initial post, the parties play a key role in who they choose to run, who they support with dollars and other help that parties give candidates. It's who they spotlight, who they discourage, etc.

I completely disagree with your last, because you are suggesting that the system is somehow self correcting.

And, we KNOW FOR A FACT that is false, because we can look to see where we are today.

Improvement is not going to happen by hoping that old white men will take care of women and minorities a little better. There has to be actual leadership change.

 

No I didn't. I said it WOULD BE wrong. If you read in that I meant it is happening, that would be entirely on you. Projecting that onto me is

We don't know exactly what factor contributes how much of it. It is likely a matter of many factors, as I wrote in my last post. I'm not going to support skipping to conclusions, especially if those conclusions are then used to push explicitly sexist policy.

That's pure strawman. I didn't write any such thing. What I wrote, and I'll write again, is that having different standards for, or outright banning people from being nominated regardless of merit and solely because of their gender, is the opposite of progress. It is an explicit endorsement and practice of sexism, exactly what we are supposed to be getting rid of. We should not be judging people by their gender. We should not be excluding people by their gender. We should be regarding people as individuals, and gender should be irrelevant.

Sure. And that doesn't have to be based on race or gender. If you are saying that only black people can support or enact fair policy in regard to race, or that only women can enact or support fair policy in regard to gender, that would be racist/sexist. And if you are saying that black people can't be racist (including against other black people) or that women can't be sexist (including against women), that would be sexist/racist. So I hope that is now what you are saying.

You need to find the right people, people who regardless of their race/gender, don't push racist or sexist policy and who are skilled in pushing better policy. And you need to enact policy that doesn't discriminate based on gender or race. That is how racism/sexism can be defeated. Drumming that "old white men will take care of".... is bigotry. Women and non-white people are welcome to become policy makers, and often will be these people we seek (and it won't be because of their gender/race), and if there are any legal barriers to that, then they should be (and mostly if not entirely have been) removed.

Also, though I understand your point, I would like to note that Ontario is not the United States. Your US Congress reference is irrelevant to the particular case in question of the Ontario Liberal Party's sexist nomination ban on men in particular ridings.

 

I think what is at the root of this issue is the old addage that you want "the best person for the job.".

The question is. Is the best person for the job this man because he's the best person because he's just inherently better than this woman? Or because he has had the advantage of a society that expects him in that role?

It's not one I would say is easily resolved I think a room full of the most brilliant men in the world would miss much knowledge of humanity, and policy without a brilliant woman among them. I think more qualified women might prove to be an advantage politically and ethically.

 

There are brilliant women among them. The last leader of the party was female. Around a quarter of the MPs are female. Sure, it may be nice if there were more women, if more women want to run. And if women who do want to run are being discriminated against, that should be looked into and stopped. But this is absolutely no excuse to ban men from being nominated in particular ridings. A person should never be banned from such a thing because of their gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. As soon as you allow such a thing, you open the door towards backsliding into (or sliding further into) repression of minorities. Exactly what we've been fighting against.

 

I don't believe the "looked into and stopped" idea works.

What does that even mean when the issue is what candidates a political party chooses to support? Every party has leadership that will flatly state that they are promoting the best candidates they can find for representing the constituency.

In the US, Republicans state that flatly. So, what more do you want in the way of "looking into" the fact that they have only 14% women in office. And, what's your plan for "stopping" that? Sorry, but without some proposed action here I think you're just blowing smoke.


And, your last is hard to explain. Ensuring more women get into office is a way of "backsliding" into greater repression? How does THAT work?

 

Again, this particular news item is not about your country. Please, Americans, stop trying to make everything about your country. The world exists outside of your borders.

By doing away with anti-sexism, and pushing sexism as good, so long as it is done in a way you approve of. What are you going to then say to people who push sexism against women? You've forfeited the argument that should be madep; that people shouldn't be judged or treated according to their gender instead of according to themselves as individuals. This identity politics excuse for prejudice, sexism, and racism needs to end.

And it is insult to many of us who are not white males to be told that we need special rules or token treatment so we can succeed even after the barriers are removed. We don't want to be looked down at as lesser, and this pushes that way of thinking. It shares more with the white supremacist mindset than you may realize. Both push that people should be judged and treated according to race, or gender, or sexual orientation, etc. I reject that, regardless of who is pushing it and against who they are pushing it.

 

How do you get respect? Well you change the rules to make things easier for yourself. lol.

 

To date I have seen little evidence to suggest that any group of politicians has a large number of the best and brightest among us. More likely just a collection of the most power hungry available axe grinders and political hacks among us.

 

Note the first rule of government as in the first rule of medicine should be 'first do no harm'.
There is a huge difference between inviting more people to the party, and throughing out others over factors beyond their control.

 

Well, this is a general issue and it showed up on this board. I use examples from Canada and other countries, as to others on this board.

One of the major points is that discrimination is not symmetric. If we want to reduce discrimination it is undoubtedly going to require action taken against that discrimination. And, there will be those who whine about that.

The barriers raised by sexism are absolutely NOT removed. So, you have a good long while to wait before you can use that excuse.

Government is a somewhat special case, because we are not going to end discrimination while also continuing without reasonable levels of participation by those being the subjects of discrimination.

Having a male dominated government passing laws on a woman's right to choose is a case in point here in the USA. We have old males on our supreme court, and right now they are actually LYING about this issue as they decide how they need to run women's lives. (Rehnquist and Thomas)

Continuing without adequate minority representation in government is not going to result in a reduction in discrimination.

 

Absolutely. And that action should not itself be racist, sexist etc. It should not accept the same foundation on which the discrimination we wish to reduce rests. It should remove that foundation. It should disagree with prejudice and should refuse to make judgments about people based on race or sexual orientation, for example, and it should address them as individuals and treat them as equals.

Most of them are. Any those that are not need to be. And that should be our focus here, instead of errecting new gender based barriers.

Similarly, I strongly supported gay marriage decades before it came to be here (which was a decade before it came to be there), but if somebody propose them, I would not endorse special rules or tax breaks for married gay couples not available to married straight couples just because homophobia exists.

I don't need an excuse to refuse to engage in or to support sexism or racism. You do?

You really do have difficulty thinking of the world outside the USA, eh?

And do you think that replacing men with women (by using tokenism or sexist bans to nomination as we see in Ontario) will help you with this issue there more than voting out pro-life people of either gender and voting in pro-choice people of either gender will?

Pro-life women exist. Gender should not be used as proxy for political opinion or agenda. That is in itself sexist. It reminds me of your president's "If you don't support me, you ain't black" racist gaffe.

 

Fair enough. That's another problem that needs to be addressed, with more transparency and accountability.

 

Yes. Throwing people out because of their race or gender, or banning them from nomination for that reason, is blatantly racist/sexist. It astounds me that anyone could think it isn't, especially if they purport to fight against racism/sexism. That such people don't even pretend otherwise, and are so brazen as to write it into official party policy, speaks volumes.

 

Which is why politicians and bureaucrats almost universally despise both.

 

Taking more overt action to get minorities into government is a significant step toward reducing the discrimination that the population experiences.

 

Yep, for woke folk, there is no sin of the past they will not repeat in their lust for political.power.

 

I think you have this backward.

It's conservatives who refuse change, not progressives.

In fact, that's a central feature of the definitions of those two.

More to the point, taking specific action designed to get more equal representation for minority constituencies can not POSSIBLY be consider increasing discrimination. It's a crystal clear approach to attacking this problem of unequal opportunity face by minorities today.

 

Who the hell is talking about change? There's no change here just repetition of the same old awful ideas in new
wrapping paper.

 

Wrt discrimination, getting more minority representation in government is change.

It's the kind of change that will lead to better understanding, and thus better solutions.

 

Q

sorry nope what they are doing us the age old olitics of exclusion based on race if genitalia