Ontario Liberal Party Goes Full Sexist

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Jolly Penguin, Nov 27, 2021.

  1. 61falcon

    61falcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    20,642
    Likes Received:
    11,735
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Females outnumber males slightly in Canada with 98.54 males to every 100 females. So maybe it's past time that they were well represented in their government.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are just plain wrong. He said:
    "1) If it's by region, then it applies to everyone in that region equally. White, black, brown, or otherwise. Further, since residents are not kept in those regions against their will, any such law looses its capacity to 'control'."
    Parties in a parliamentary system are EXPECTED to pick issues and find candidates that support those issues.

    That's one of the several advantages of a parliamentary system.

    There does not exist any right that says parties have to be open to all applicants.
    This is a predominantly American board and the USA has these same problems of discrimination.

    In fact, I would suggest that we are in worse shape that is Canada in this dimension. Thus bad examples are EASY to find in America.

    The result is that I can find cases in America that demonstrate how wrong Crank is.
     
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, the issue isn't that they can't.

    The issue is that the don't. And, that is supportable by just looking at the lack of progress - in fact, the retrograde motion we are seeing today.

    Your comments on Harris and Sanders are just plain ridiculous, and I totally reject that outright as even being an example

    But more importantly, finding one example is meaningless anyway. This issue is not about one example. In fact, no hypothesis can be validated by finding ONE case.

    Try out your idea on women's rights to abortion in America.
     
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes.

    In America, 51% are female. Yet only 14% of Republican congressmen are women. And, that is being heralded as a notable IMPROVEMENT!!

    Dems are better at 38%, but that's faint praise if you ask me.
     
  5. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,790
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Crank was saying denied vote applies to all in the region. And you translated that to:

    Which may be what you wish was said, but wasn't what was said.

    Issues. Not genders. The green party banning nomination of big oil lobbyists makes sense. The Ontario Liberal Party banning nomination of an entire gender does not. Can you see the difference?

    So you would be fine with the Republicans in your country banning blacks or famales from running for nomination? I wouldn't be. Can you see why?

    And Americans are self absorbed, I get it. Raw raw raw USA! USA!

    I actually don't mind talking about the actual topic as it applies globally, but US partisan bickering is not welcomed by me in a thread no about US politics.

    And you keep straying from the topic and into American politics that have nothing to do with gender (or race) bans on people being nominated.

    Your earlier contention that old white men can't understand and won't push for change against sexism and racism was on topic, but you keep dodging that now. Please either support your claim or retract it. I brought up people in your own country like Kamala and Bernie to try to make it easier for you.
     
  6. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,790
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And you can't see how racist and sexist a statement that is when applied not to the current people sitting in power but to white as a race and male as a gender? The Ontario Liberal Party isn't banning old white men who don't care about sexism. They are banning men in these ridings, full stop.
     
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, while that is true, that is not the total of what I meant.

    But, first please note that gerrymandering strongly affects the definition of "region". So, the first step is to recognize that wrt voting, the region itself can be an assault on representation, causing your vote ot mean less than the votes of others. So, a state can end up with a white supremacist majority simply because the region boundaries have been drawn to keep the black population concentrated in a small number of specific districts and the rest spread out to be a low minority outside those regions. The resultant white majority writes the laws that apply to all, but were designed to support discrimination.

    This is not hypothetical. It's in the courts AGAIN, because Republicans are drawing district boundaries in ways to maximize their benefit.

    Next, there are factors in the voting system that the parties choose to implement for the purpose of making it disproportionately hard for certain constituencies to vote.

    Next, the choice of candidates by the party IS selected to be sensitive to specific issues. That's a key in this discussion. When the ballot presents the option between various misogynists, that does not affect women and men equally.

    Etc. I've posted this before.
    Unfortunately, the issue is gender, not oil.
    They are already being pretty effective at that as I've pointed out.

    The Republicans don't have loudly advertise that's what they are doing.

    Your Ontario party didn't have to say they were working to present an all female list of candidates.
    You don't like what I say, so you call it bickering!!!

    The catch is, I've use real world examples and I've been charitable - you just don't like the message.
    No, I don't dodge that.

    I brought that up again only a few posts back.

    I have NO idea what you are on about with Harris and Sanders.

    But, you coming up with one example can not possibly make a difference. You can find bad actors everywhere.

    What I've brought up are patterns of action that take place across the board.
     
  8. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And, the Green party is banning oil people full stop - even though they aren't all evil. After all, we do need oil and there are important issues concerning how to get it delivered and mitigate the problem areas. One can easily point out that there are people savvy about oil who are not attempting to destroy Earth.
     
  9. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,790
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No that's not the key difference. A person's status as an oil lobbyist is their position on an important issue; the founding issue of the party. A person's gender is not their position on any important issue. It is a personal matter. Some men are quite strong advocates against misogyny, and some powerful women care very little about it. To equate an individual's gender with a person's political view or what they care about is blatant sexist prejudice against that individual.

    Perhaps, but I've never come across any written party policy that says they are banned from doing so in any particular riding. Have you? Would you support such a policy or oppose it? If you would oppose it, why? You support the gender policy against males in these Ontario ridings.

    And yet they did. Isn't that notable? They not only didn't realize it is bad, and try to hide it. They declared it proudly. That shows a serious problem with the mindset within the current party leadership, that would have been balked at less than a decade ago under Kathleen Wynne's Liberal Party.

    I call your taking things off topic into partisan American politics partisan bickering. Your country is extremely polarized, and in almost every thread in this politics section we see Americans sniping at the opposing party instead of addressing actual issues. I would like to avoid that here, especially since this thread isn't about the USA.

    It is just one example. There are many more. They show that your claim that old white men don't care about misogyny or racism isn't universal, and nor is that people who aren't old white man will care universal. It is prejudice on your part, similar to somebody pointing at crime stats and claiming black people are inherently violent criminals and should be profiled and stopped and harassed more often by police. This is not acceptable to me regardless of who is trying to discriminate against who based on gender or race. This is sexism/racism.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2021
    roorooroo likes this.
  10. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree it is not universal.

    However, ignoring this issue by having the parties select old white men is not working.

    We can tell it's not working, right?

    Or, is the status quo what you are wanting for Ontario?
     
  11. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,790
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How about not basing nominations on gender? How about trying that? People who want to run, male or female, say they want to run and get nominated based on something that isn't a constitutional (yes, we have one too) grounds of improper discrimination. Why not try that? If some female individuals are being overlooked in favour of male individuals based on gender in the Ontario Liberal Party, that would be a serious problem in need of correcting (and an admission of sexism in the party; likely requiring a change of leadership). You can't correct that by adding even MORE gender discrimination, now against different individual males (not the same males who got preferential treatment previously). That's only doubling down the wrong, not fixing anything.

    Gender discrimination is gender discrimination. The answer is to GET RID OF IT, not add more of it.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  12. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow,you're touchy!

    But, I'll point out that you're confused about what parties do. If you want to run under the name of a party, that party would have to agree to that. That's why they can exclude those who don't satisfy them. So, if someone wants to run, they have to try to appeal to the public, but also to the party leadership.

    In my opinion, there needs to be a rebalancing of representation. Without women present in the back rooms of our legislatures, etc., the impact of government action on women will not be reasonably considered. Women are more than half the population. Taking an explicit step to give slightly less of a dominant male majority is not something that I can possibly accept as "sexist". Any party that cares about women should see this as an important direction.

    Your first sentence says you are not even slightly open to discussion, so I'll honor that and stop here if you do.
     
  13. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    48,521
    Likes Received:
    14,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) Well we agree that any attempt to 'restore balance' is some pretty serious sexism/racism, and needs to be addressed. Otherwise I have no clue what you're saying here.

    2) What problems are those? Could you spell them out please? What exactly is stopping people from ensuring they're fit for survival?

    3) So 55% not black, then. And any voting law which applies to the REGION, therefore applies to every colour and creed therein.

    4) What is equal, in your mind? Forced participation? Demands that 'women and brown people' do jobs they don't want to do? I don't think you're anywhere near grasping how closely you're in step with those you probably condemn as white supremacists.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  14. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    48,521
    Likes Received:
    14,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Washington is possibly considered a conflict of interests (insider trading, kinda sorta). And Guam and Puerto Rico are more like adjuncts to the US. America on paper only. It makes sense that they might be excluded for that reason. And I'm sure Washington wasn't always black. The law presumably predates the current demographic, so claims of racist motives don't wash.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2021
    roorooroo likes this.
  15. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    48,521
    Likes Received:
    14,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Any party that cares about people, should want the best people in politics, taken from those who actually pursue a political career. Prejudicing one sex or race, to favour another, is antithetical to both egalitarianism and progress.

    Now let's look at that elephant in your room - my bolding above. There is nothing good about the idea we can compel women and brown people to do our bidding. To make prettier pictures for us, so we feel better about ourselves. No matter what you tell yourself motivates such a belief (and it's always something along the lines of 'it's for their own good'), it's still terrible.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2021
    roorooroo and Jolly Penguin like this.
  16. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    48,521
    Likes Received:
    14,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well said.
     
  17. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    48,521
    Likes Received:
    14,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Okay then. You go ahead and force women to apply for those jobs. While you're at it, go find some brown people to force into roles they don't want, also. Tell them it'll make you feel better. I'm sure they'll understand, happily sacrificing their lives in the interests of your comfort.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  18. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've done this several times on this thread. And, I've watched you be told by other people, too.

    So, give me a reason why I should keep spoon feeding one poster, over and over again on the very same questions.
    Well, this is just false. For one example, Arizona cut out half their polling places. Can you guess who they affected with that? Georgia cut out large numbers of places where people can register to vote. Do you know how they chose those cites to remove. Texas is gerrymandering minorities into concentrated "districts" such that they have less influence in elections for legislative seats that make the laws for the whole state - not just the district.

    Why are you so unaware of this issue, yet still come here to preach?
    AGAIN you aren't listening.

    The idea that you think anyone is interested in requiring someone to do jobs they don't want to do is just more proof that you don't have a CLUE about this issue.
     
  19. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That IS where we are. That's where we have been for a very long time.

    The issue is how to make progress on fixing that.
    Nobody has suggested compelling anyone to do anything.

    Please tell me where you got that cornball idea so it can be addressed more directly.

    Is this something you heard on TV?
     
  20. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    48,521
    Likes Received:
    14,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) That one reason is because your justification for claiming people can't keep themselves alive needs close examining. You're talking about a first world democracy, remember.

    2) Cool. I live in a rich white area, and we've lost polling places to a nearby working class migrant area. If people don't like it, they can move somewhere else. Until there are laws passed making it illegal to move, you have no argument. There are always going to be negative things about where we live that we could choose to regard as some kind of slight against our person, but generally only insane people do that. Most of us recognise that it's almost always about money, and people are the very last consideration.

    There is no political party so detached from long term pragmatics, that they can forfeit fiscal expediency in favour of being mean to brown people for the LOLs. I suggest that if you're associated with a party which either does that, or imagines the other side doing it, you're investing your energy in people with no more mastery of their emotions than three year olds.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  21. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    48,521
    Likes Received:
    14,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If a job listing attracts 100 applicants - and 15 are female, and another 10 are non-white - then CLEARLY there is a lack of interest in that particular field, from those two groups. The only way you can change that is to force those groups to take those jobs.
     
    Jolly Penguin and roorooroo like this.
  22. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is just plain ridiculous.

    We are talking about capitalism. And, capitalism DOES NOT CARE about those that fail to compete.
    No, representation is a right. We fought our revolutionary war over ONE ISSUE - representation.

    And, the concerted efforts to limit or deny that right are not acceptable.

    Then, you continue accusing people of promoting directions that they do not promote.

    That is NOT a legitimate argument style.

    YOUR argument style is that of creating straw dogs.

    So, either you don't know the issues or you are afraid of considering them. I tend to think it is the former, as pointed out in previous posts.
     
  23. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Government is about representation. And, you can't claim there are so few women interested in government that only 14% of Republican legislative offices can be filled by women.

    In fact, that's clear evidence that the party DOES have a problem with sexism.

    You clearly have NOT been reading this thread, because this thread is about a way that a party found to increase the number of women in government WITHOUT forcing anyone to do anything.
     
  24. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,681
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    btw: Are you suggesting that blacks aren't interested in the field of leadership at a time when white supremacists are identified by the FBI as the premier active terrorist problem in America?

    Are you really going to to actually claim that it is THEIR fault for NOT BEING INTERESTED???

    Because that IS what your post amounts to.
     
  25. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    48,521
    Likes Received:
    14,998
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is simply you deciding that women should and/or do, want those jobs - even when the evidence is that they don't. If you respect women as you claim to do, why don't you respect their choice not to work in jobs they are clearly telling you they don't want? And before you try - no, you cannot claim to know the reasons they don't want those jobs - and attempting to do so is further disrespect of female autonomy.
     
    roorooroo and Jolly Penguin like this.

Share This Page