Comments on: Ah, yes, the old one-third equality thing http://www.prowomanprolife.org/2009/06/19/ah-yes-the-old-one-third-equality-thing/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:25:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: grenadier http://www.prowomanprolife.org/2009/06/19/ah-yes-the-old-one-third-equality-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-3675 grenadier Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:49:58 +0000 http://www.prowomanprolife.org/?p=5962#comment-3675 Just one more reason, besides the many I have collected over the past 50 years, NOT to vote Liberal. Never have. Never voted NDP either. Which does NOT mean I never will...... Just hope I don't get Alzheimers and forget all those reasons! Just one more reason, besides the many I have collected over the past 50 years, NOT to vote Liberal. Never have. Never voted NDP either.

Which does NOT mean I never will…… Just hope I don’t get Alzheimers and forget all those reasons!

]]> By: Nicole http://www.prowomanprolife.org/2009/06/19/ah-yes-the-old-one-third-equality-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-3674 Nicole Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:15:04 +0000 http://www.prowomanprolife.org/?p=5962#comment-3674 What I'd be most annoyed about if I was an elected woman would be wondering if it was my gender that got me votes, the job. As opposed to substance. And now they've put it in writing it's clearly highly motivated by balancing the gender ratio, we'll never feel like we legitimately got the position due to capability again. I don't feel like women's rights were respected at all in them lowering the bar. Reverse sexism should be just as intolerable. I don't need allowances to be made for my sake (or in the more general sense, women don't need an easier path just because they're women...) how pompous. What I’d be most annoyed about if I was an elected woman would be wondering if it was my gender that got me votes, the job. As opposed to substance. And now they’ve put it in writing it’s clearly highly motivated by balancing the gender ratio, we’ll never feel like we legitimately got the position due to capability again. I don’t feel like women’s rights were respected at all in them lowering the bar. Reverse sexism should be just as intolerable. I don’t need allowances to be made for my sake (or in the more general sense, women don’t need an easier path just because they’re women…) how pompous.

]]> By: BillyHW http://www.prowomanprolife.org/2009/06/19/ah-yes-the-old-one-third-equality-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-3669 BillyHW Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:16:29 +0000 http://www.prowomanprolife.org/?p=5962#comment-3669 33 percent? That'll bring us to Afghanistan levels, won't it? What would we do without the Natural Governing Party™? 33 percent? That’ll bring us to Afghanistan levels, won’t it?

What would we do without the Natural Governing Party™?

]]> By: Bob Devine http://www.prowomanprolife.org/2009/06/19/ah-yes-the-old-one-third-equality-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-3668 Bob Devine Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:14:12 +0000 http://www.prowomanprolife.org/?p=5962#comment-3668 What a bunch of crap! We need the best, most qualified candidates period. Woman, man or labrador retriever who cares as long as they are the most qualified and get the votes. What a bunch of crap! We need the best, most qualified candidates period. Woman, man or labrador retriever who cares as long as they are the most qualified and get the votes.

]]> By: Matthew N http://www.prowomanprolife.org/2009/06/19/ah-yes-the-old-one-third-equality-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-3664 Matthew N Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:36:32 +0000 http://www.prowomanprolife.org/?p=5962#comment-3664 Why not 34%? Why, should she settle for rounding down if women deserve one third representation? To be fair, she said no fewer. Still, the number seems arbitrary, and if their only criteria for equality is that the distribution matches the demograph (ie. 51%), why are they cool with a minimum of 33%? They want to be truly representative.... 50% of people are below average intelligence. Let's at least try to equalize the number of smart and stupid people who are running our country (read that whatever way you wish). Why not 34%? Why, should she settle for rounding down if women deserve one third representation?

To be fair, she said no fewer. Still, the number seems arbitrary, and if their only criteria for equality is that the distribution matches the demograph (ie. 51%), why are they cool with a minimum of 33%?

They want to be truly representative…. 50% of people are below average intelligence. Let’s at least try to equalize the number of smart and stupid people who are running our country (read that whatever way you wish).

]]>