Is Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau’s Cabinet Discriminatory Against Men? Double standards, double standards everywhere

The new Canadian Prime Minister vowed to achieve gender equality in his cabinet. And achieve gender equality he did. Half of the 30 ministers are women and a lot of them are visible minorities, which in Canada means that even though you might be a part of a small struggling community of Russian men, you don’t count as a minority group because your skin is the wrong colour.

The obvious problem with having gender quotas is that they most likely create discrimination against the dominant group for no other reason than them being born with the wrong genitalia. I’m not one to believe that two wrongs make a right, so I’m not quite sure why Trudeau and his followers think that you can solve alleged discrimination by creating actual discrimination.

It seems to me that the way to eliminate discrimination is to enforce a strict meritocracy. If that results in a cabinet full of white men or full of black women or whatever, so be it. What matters is that they got the job because they were qualified, not because of a birth accident. Furthermore, if I were a woman, I couldn’t help but wonder if I became a minister because of my qualifications or because of what I have between my legs.

Such is the paradox of women’s quotas: to empower women, you have to tacitly admit that women are not good enough to rise up by themselves so they need a little boost from the establishment. Who, other than a feminist, would be misogynistic enough to believe that about women?

Quotas do not lead to equality

The worst thing about quotas is that they aren’t applied equally throughout society. For example, there is a severe lack of male teachers and nurses but never do these equality advocates demand quotas in favour of men. Also, when it comes to jobs that aren’t so safe, well paid, and prestigious as politician or CEO, like waste collectors (we call them garbagemen for a reason), lumberjacks, sewer workers, and long distance truckers, to name a few, they are somehow perfectly content with having only an infinitely small minority of women doing these jobs.

It’s usually at that point that the following argument comes up: women don’t want these jobs! I’m sure they don’t want them and I bet most men don’t want them either. The reality is, they still have to be done. If women are so keen on participating equally to society, they’ll have to pull their fair share of the weight there too.

Instead, we’re running down a path where it would possible for a woman who has never picked up garbage once in her life to become the administrator of a public waste collecting company through gender quotas discrimination and essentially be given authority over men who are more qualified than her, simply because she has a vagina.

Women are overly represented in the cabinet

On October 19, the Liberal Party won 184 seats and 30 of these elected members of parliament (MPs) have been selected to become minister. Of these, only 50 are held by female MPs. It means that women represent a mere 26% of the elected MPs. Why then do they get 50% representation in the cabinet? Here’s another way to look at it. If you’re a female MP in Trudeau’s party, you had 30% chance of becoming a minister, while your male colleagues only had 11% chance, for no other reason than pure discrimination. Talk about male privilege!

One might argue that it is only fair that women represent 50% of the cabinet members since they represent half of the population. This argument doesn’t hold water. Ministers do not represent the population, the elected members of Parliament do. Women consistently participate in the democratic process at a higher rate than men and there are no systemic barriers preventing women from running for election, which is evidenced by the fact that there are plenty of women running for elections and that there has even been a female Prime Minister, Mrs. Kim Campbell.

Despite having all the same opportunities as men, women only manage to get themselves a representation of 50 MPs in the ruling party and 88 in total in the House of Commons, which incidentally also represents 26% of all the elected MPs.

This is not an attack against women. It has been well established by now that women in aggregate tend to make different career choices than men to more easily accommodate a family life. As someone whose grandfather used to be an MP, I can attest that the lifestyle of a politician is hard to conciliate with a family, because you’re always away from home and most women don’t want that. The point is, the low female representation is well explained by individual choices rooted in biology, not by systemic discrimination.

Conclusion

As with many things, it all comes down to equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome. Justin Trudeau’s progressive policies are an example of the latter. The scariest thing is not the rampant discrimination against men, but rather the erosion of meritocracy in Canada’s uppermost ruling body. Harper and the conservatives in general might have their flaws, but at least they didn’t play the identity politics game the Liberals are playing — and winning at the moment.

As the Sweden of North America, Canada is used to general silliness and feminist dogma in the political establishment, but I fear that the reign of Trudeau as PM will destroy what little remains of Canadian pride and respect on the international scene.

Read more: Canada’s Gamergate-Hating Prime Minister Learned Feminism From His Gold-Digging Mother