jdobbin Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 http://www.straight.com/article-200487/mic...ack-liberal-bus As I recently scanned the list of Michael Ignatieff’s shadow cabinet, I was struck by how few women are in key positions.There are nine women among the 33 Liberal critics. Most are on the B-list in terms of the potential of these positions to boost the critic’s profile. Two quasi-exceptions are health (Carolyn Bennett) and labour (Maria Minna). However, it’s worth noting that in Canada's decentralized federation, federal health and labour ministers have far less power than their federal counterparts. It is a little light on women although I disagree that Health is a junior ministry. The article goes on to say how many NDP women have high positions in the shadow cabinet. I suppose a smaller caucus helps mitigate that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 It is a little light on women although I disagree that Health is a junior ministry. Grasping at straws. It's reverse discrimination appointing women to positions only because they're women. Harper caved again and appointed tokens to his new overstuffed cabinet at a time of economic crisis. They each get an extra $ 75,000.00 per year, plus limo, drivers and perks; yet they're not allowed to speak without permission. Ignatieff chose the best people for the jobs. He is not Stephen Harper or Jack Layton. He is substance not flash. Women love him. He reads to his wife because she has poor eyesight. I have poor eyesight so my husband bought me a page magnifier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Women love him. He reads to his wife because she has poor eyesight. I have poor eyesight so my husband bought me a page magnifier. Sounds like your husband is a lot more practical than Ignatieff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
85RZ500 Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) I have poor eyesight so my husband bought me a page magnifier. So do I. I wear glasses so I can see the forest and the trees. Try some, LOL maybe you will see the Convenient Canadian as the charleton he is. Edited February 8, 2009 by 85RZ500 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 http://www.straight.com/article-200487/mic...ack-liberal-busIt is a little light on women although I disagree that Health is a junior ministry. The article goes on to say how many NDP women have high positions in the shadow cabinet. I suppose a smaller caucus helps mitigate that. Dobbin - it's nice to see that you're back to being more of a balanced critic - a Liberal supporter (nothing wrong with that) but willing to bring forward the odd contentious issue. I'd like to think that's the REAL Dobbin. FYI.....your selected quote somehow got changed.....it should say "Provincial counterparts" as was stated in the original article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 So do I. I wear glasses so I can see the forest and the trees. Try some, LOL maybe you will see the Convenient Canadian as the charleton he is. rose coloured - no doubt. I recall the 'Ignatieff reading for his wife' appeared within the Mercer video... it's hard to imagine that a caring/loving gesture could be interpreted as anything but. Oh right - your glasses are tinted - sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 rose coloured - no doubt. I do have glasses, not rose tinted. There are a great many things I don't like about Michael Ignatieff. For one, he is a fan of Ronald Reagan, or at least some of his policies. I never liked Reagan and thought he should have had to answer for the Iran Contra deal - and not by shredding documents. When it comes to women in his shadow cabinet; the difference is that Harper has to try to change his image with regards to women. He has always been outspoken on the topic and one of his first orders of business when becoming PM was to remove the word 'equality' from the Status of Women as well as 5 million dollars from their budget. His 'token' women cabinet members have not impressed anyone, since it comes with a hefty pricetag. Millions of dollars from the treasury during an economic crisis. It has also angered many longtime Reformers, the backbone of the party, who have been passed over again, just to improve an image. Ignatieff, on the other hand, has been a longtime advocate for the rights of women, aboriginals, gays, etc. He has no image to live down, so is free to choose his shadow cabinet on merit, and will do the same when he has to select his cabinet. As a longtime advocate for women's rights, I have never wanted concessions for being a woman, only recognition and equal opportunities. Rewards must be earned. It seems the more I learn about Michael Ignatieff, the more I want to learn; good and bad. He's led such a fascinating life. From two years living in Yugoslavia under Tito, when his father was a Canadian ambassador; to his in depth coverage of the Croation War. What a great perspective he will bring to the office of Prime Minister. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted February 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I'd like to think that's the REAL Dobbin. FYI.....your selected quote somehow got changed.....it should say "Provincial counterparts" as was stated in the original article. It looks like it was in the original article since I didn't edit anything out. Should have proofread it. Thanks for pointing it out. As far as the issue goes, I think it is true that Ignatieff has an issue to look at in terms of women in the cabinet. He has some talent to work with and he should work creatively to address things. He should also be clear that performance will be a factor for all critics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted February 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Grasping at straws. It's reverse discrimination appointing women to positions only because they're women. Harper caved again and appointed tokens to his new overstuffed cabinet at a time of economic crisis. They each get an extra $ 75,000.00 per year, plus limo, drivers and perks; yet they're not allowed to speak without permission. Cabinet positions have always been a combination of loyalty, geography, skills and performance. Gender has played a role in the last few decades and is now extremely important as well. Discrimination is a factor in selection. People are discriminated against because there are too many from one province, too many with the same skills and too many of the same gender. In other words, a man with skills in business in a province with a few people who share his job training and who was a rival to the leader in the past might find himself outside of cabinet for all those reasons. We have to acknowledge that the Liberals have only 2 seats on the prairies. One of those MPs is a woman. The other, of course is Goodale who has taken the position as House Leader. Neville is not a bad MP. She just is not a likely candidate for an inner cabinet job. However, since she is the only MP in Manitoba, she is in cabinet. Ignatieff has some skilled people to work with. He is going to have to be nimble and look at finding people including women to sit at that inner cabinet. He is going to need that type of insight around the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Ignatieff has some skilled people to work with. He is going to have to be nimble and look at finding people including women to sit at that inner cabinet. He is going to need that type of insight around the table. In addition to his shadow cabinet, Ignatieff formed a kitchen cabinet of ten veteran MPs who advise him on various matters. Two of the ten are women. Every morning at 8:30, he meets a proxy group of about 10 Liberal MPs and gets their input and advice. That's in contrast to the way most opposition leaders have operated; usually, it's been just the leader and a tight unelected clique of advisers who held sway.The kitchen cabinet members, a veteran group to contrast the leader's newness, include Bob Rae, Ralph Goodale, David McGuinty, Ujjal Dosanjh, Marlene Jennings, Denis Coderre, Albina Guarnieri and Roger Cuzner. They had a big say in Mr. Ignatieff's decision to let Newfoundland MPs vote their conscience on the budget instead of succumbing like clubbed seals to leadership dictate. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ialComment/home http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ialComment/home It will be interesting to see who calls the shots in a future election campaign, the kitchen cabinet or the war room headed by Warren Kinsella. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Ignatieff has some skilled people to work with. He is going to have to be nimble and look at finding people including women to sit at that inner cabinet. He is going to need that type of insight around the table. I agree. I'm sure that when he is PM he will have a cabinet that includes many women, not because they are women, but because they are best able to fill the position. There will be many considerations. However, if anyone is suggesting that he is discriminating or excluding based on gender, they couldn't be more wrong. He has nothing to prove on that issue. Besides reading his book Blood and Belonging, I have also been reading some of his lectures, initially written for a radio program entitled Rights Revolution, with the help of the Banff Centre for the Arts. He has a very clear understanding of what rights are and what they are not. He supports inclusion, not tokenism and his government will hopefully not be based on conciliatory appointments to try and convince Canadians that he is something he's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Grasping at straws. It's reverse discrimination appointing women to positions only because they're women. I never thought I'd live to see that day that Jdobbin wasn't the most biased Liberal on this board. OMG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I never thought I'd live to see that day that Jdobbin wasn't the most biased Liberal on this board. OMG. You still haven't. He posted something which inevitably would have been posted by someone else anyway, and his sole "criticism", if you can call it that is "it is a little light on women". He then goes on in other posts to defend the Liberals. The posting struck me as more calculated than anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I never thought I'd live to see that day that Jdobbin wasn't the most biased Liberal on this board. OMG. Have I been promoted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who's Doing What? Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 You still haven't. He posted something which inevitably would have been posted by someone else anyway, and his sole "criticism", if you can call it that is "it is a little light on women". He then goes on in other posts to defend the Liberals.The posting struck me as more calculated than anything else. Your post is as useful as ever. This is just someone with too much time on their hands and an axe to grind with the libs. This would be a sad argument against any party, even by Liberal standards. THe best people were chosen for the job. That is all that matters. Choosing a woman just because she is a woman(or any minority) is just as bad as not choosing her(them) for the same reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 The article goes on to say how many NDP women have high positions in the shadow cabinet. I suppose a smaller caucus helps mitigate that. Nobody that has Libby Davies can claim to have a small caucus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted February 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 You still haven't. He posted something which inevitably would have been posted by someone else anyway, and his sole "criticism", if you can call it that is "it is a little light on women". He then goes on in other posts to defend the Liberals. Really? Someone else would have posted this? I haven't defended anything with the shadow cabinet. It is a little light on women and Ignatieff will have to do something to ensure he finds more women to bring around the table. One of the reason that Harper doesn't do well with women is because he just doesn't have enough representatives at the table to speak out in inner cabinet meetings. Mulroney was far better with some high profile people in both Opposition and government that he let manage cabinet portfolios. The posting struck me as more calculated than anything else. And your post is more personalizing that anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 http://www.straight.com/article-200487/mic...ack-liberal-busIt is a little light on women although I disagree that Health is a junior ministry. The article goes on to say how many NDP women have high positions in the shadow cabinet. I suppose a smaller caucus helps mitigate that. Any woman that aspires to public life has insecurity issues and ambitions to be a man...put them in the hall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted February 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Any woman that aspires to public life has insecurity issues and ambitions to be a man...put them in the hall. I'm sure you're right. Any woman who goes out in public should walk a few steps behind her man. Oh, and not be allowed to drive either. And maybe keep their face covered! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 I'm sure you're right. Any woman who goes out in public should walk a few steps behind her man. Oh, and not be allowed to drive either. And maybe keep their face covered! One must remember that sex - is a thing of the soul and spirit - some people may have female bodies but they have the spirit of a male --- I respect females that live in female bodies - but really don't care or fully respect MEN - that live in a female body and use the protection and cover of womanhood to further their male goals...at least someone like the former British PM - Maggy Thatcher was a woman - who had a man that supported her fully from the side lines ----perfect example is the female Bill Clinton who can never behave like a real man who is controlled by a man disguised as a female - Hillary! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted February 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 (edited) at least someone like the former British PM - Maggy Thatcher was a woman - However, you said any woman who aspire to public office has insecurity. Ergo: Thatcher was insecure. And a man. Edited February 9, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.