I agree with this in broad strokes, my only caveat would be that arguably our current system ALREADY favours some groups over others (men over women for instance). I don't so much want to tinker with the system to make it favour women more, I'd like to tinker with the system to make it favour men less (or not discourage women to the extent that it does). Perhaps one can argue that that is a distinction without a difference, but I don't think so. My goal would be to eliminate barriers, not to erect new or different barriers, and CERTAINLY not quotas.

Lisa: Assistant Groundskeeper Skinner, don't you think it's wrong that I can't get the best math education because I'm a girl?

Skinner: [sighs] I don't have any opinions anymore. All I know is that no one is better than anyone else, and everyone is the best at everything.

From: notifications@intensedebatemail.com
To: jsrobinson@live.ca
Subject: Richard_S_Argent replied to your comment on Would you please make up your minds?

I think it would be great if we could change what kind of person tries to become MP but I don't like idea of tinkering with system to favour one group over others because other identity groups will want their own representation quotas as well.

I agree that maybe women just aren't interested in joining the freak show that is Parliament. So, if we have a system in place that seems like it might (speaking in generalizations) tend to disincentivize more than half of the population from fully participating in the democratic process, maybe that's something we should be looking in to. If the system seems to keep women from wanting to participate, perhaps we should look at changing the system, rather than just shrugging off their under-representation, or trying to change women to fit the system. Is our current system of governance really so super awesome that we can't discuss possibly changing the system to no longer discourage women from participating?

I agree that maybe women just aren't interested in joining the freak show that is Parliament. So, if we have a system in place that seems like it might (speaking in generalizations) tend to disincentivize more than half of the population from fully participating in the democratic process, maybe that's something we should be looking in to. If the system seems to keep women from wanting to participate, perhaps we should look at changing the system, rather than just shrugging off their under-representation, or trying to change women to fit the system. Is our current system of governance really so super awesome that we can't discuss possibly changing the system to no longer discourage women from participating?

when it comes to corruption, us menfolk are number 1, as there exists an inverse correlation between the percentage of women elected to high office in a country and that country's proclivity towards corruption.

I stand corrected.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti…

I can't find similar numbers for Canada but I know it's about the same. Do you think it's a problem when more females than males make up a profession or is it only an issue for you when it's male dominated field? How about sports. Black males dominate American sports – should there be quotas to help the laggard white guys?

I can. Given the repugnant blood-sport that is politics in North America, why would we expect more than 22% of MPs to be women? Women tend not to aspire to be a part of that sort of hyper-aggressive environment. Note the use of the word 'tend'. There are of course numerous individual exceptions to such generalizations.

I'm not really certain, but I'd like to find out.

I'm also not sure 100 more seats are really necessary, but I can't get my head around the idea that women only holding 68 seats in a 308 seat Parliament is no problem whatsoever.

Your headline says it all. Women are so flighty, aren't they?

I'm surprised we still put up wit them at all.

Women need to decide that either they are different from men, (and therefore can't be trusted to run things like wars, or the economy), or they're exactly the same as men (and therefore they should just shut up already about being underrepresented in the corridors of power, because it doesn't matter, we're all the same anyway). They can either be marginalized because they're different, or marginalized because they're the same, but they need to decide which and stop pretending that being marginalized is somehow a problem in and of itself.

If women are different from men then we need to recognize that and only let them do certain things. If they're the same as men, then it doesn't matter if they don't get to do certain things because a man would do the job just the same anyway.

Women hold fully 22% of the seats in the Parliament, men only hold the other 78% of the seats. When will Canadian women be satisfied???

And I only bring up the life expectancy thing to begin with because if men were outliving women by five years, we could expect a major fuss being made about that. But the fact is, we men are, on average, inherently more violent, more competitive, more risk-taking and more reckless. We commit suicide more often, and do so more violently (and succeed at it more often). We also willingly take on more stress in our often mindless competition with other men, inviting more heart disease and stroke. When we do finally run ourselves into the ground, we're much less likely to reach out to those around us for help. Therefore, for men to complain about life expectancy is absurd. It's all because of our own behaviour and our own choices. However, those tendencies can also lead to higher incomes. We're more extreme at both ends of the scale.

If I can admit that, why can't women admit that it is often their own choices that result in lower overall income levels? I'm not arguing that discrimination against women in terms of wages and in jobs availability never existed. It did. What I'm arguing is that we've largely overcome that, and what differences in average incomes remain can be explained by inherent gender differences. Much like men's lower life expectancy can. And of course "inherent gender differences" can only apply on average. It cannot be applied to any one individual.

This might be the most painfully dim thing I've read here yet…and with Colby Cosh on board, that's really saying something!

Mr. Coyne, you are clearly a smart man, which is why it's painful to read something that would garner a Pity C in 1st year university. Feminism is not monolithic, never has been, never will be. What you are highlighting in your inimitable way is the tension between the feminisms of Luce Irirgaray and Judith Butler…even I, with my woefully superficial understanding of feminism, was able to spot that right away. Frankly, your preconceived notions on this topic say much more about you than feminism.

(Wikipedia is your friend sir, use it.)

Why this is a problem for you is mind-boggling. Can you find an example of ANY thought/belief system whose adherents believe the exact same things and on the methods to best achieve them? I can't. Why is feminism not given the same latitude?

Sincerely,

Disappointed.

Somehow this doesn't equate to men being inconsistent.

Of course, Taber also forgot the party with the woman deputy leader/house leader who regularly leads off question period in the leader's absence on all issues of the day, and which used to have a female defence critic until she retired.

Anyways, it's not the end of the world if you get a bit confused about what women want. Think how confusing it was for women to figure out how to move into and fit into a world not designed by them. Contradictions should be embraced, because we learn from them.

So, do you figure then that if men had a minimum wage of, say, $35/hour, we'd solve the homeless problem? $50? $100?