Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

jacee

Members
  • Content Count

    12,072
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

jacee last won the day on April 23

jacee had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

293 Excellent

About jacee

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female

Recent Profile Visitors

19,297 profile views
  1. It's a necessary adjustment. The odds are still far in favour of white men in positions of power, who still hire white men, so it's still necessary to continue the adjustment to more appropriate proportions of women and people of colour, who meet qualifications.
  2. People can wear whatever they want. Nobody's business. Just cos you don't like it doesn't make it 'law'. Lol
  3. Ridiculous. I'll wear whatever the fk I want for whatever reason I want. You can't limit only some people - just Muslims and Sikhs for example. You have to limit everyone. No woman can ever wear a turban or a headscarf or a face covering for any reason? All women must expose skin to go swimming? Ridiculous! Fk off with that nonsense.
  4. My somewhat sarcastic point is that turbans, headscarves and veils/scarves covering face/balaclavas have always been available fashion choices, and must remain so (weather, bad hair days, etc). Nobody's business. And who determines whether I wear it for religious or fashion reasons? Nobody's business. For that reason, Bill 21 will be struck down by the courts, I believe. To constrain religious fashion is to constrain everybody's fashion, and then it is ridiculous. I can cover my face for weather, but a Muslim woman can't? Ridiculous.
  5. I wonder ... can a man or woman still wear a turban or head scarf or veil if it isn't religious, just a fashion choice? Lol Retention of culture through language is a different issue.
  6. There's lots of solid data. I lived and worked through that era. For example, there were NOT more women doctors when affirmative action began, but only as a result of it - because the white men making medical school admission choices had to be forced to select more women, when qualifications were equal. Incompetent men were still generally hired and promoted to leadership positions more than competent women, and still continued to harass, demean and objectify women in the workplace, especially women more competent than them. That's NOT discrimination against white men. It's a correction of discrimination against women, people of colour and other people marginalized by the white patriarchy, which was and is still over-represented in positions of authority. And you don't EVER get to mansplain women's reasons, unless you provide a link to valid and relevant research. I can't believe we're still having this stupid debate. It's 2019 ffs.
  7. That's not new. It's the old concept. But since human judgement is always involved in those decisions, it turned out that the (mostly) white men in positions of authority still picked (mostly) white men, as they always had. So, yes, the patriarchy had to be 'interfered with' to force the issue. Oh well. Ho hum. Yawn. Old news.
  8. Getting to the point of ridiculousness, in a country that prides itself on freedom of religion and expression.
  9. "he"=she Whose career? Whose reputation? How? Hahahaha
  10. I think you must know why you're wrong: The facts have been provided to you for 50 years now, that I recall. Give a bunch of white boss men a pile of resumes ... all the ones with foreign or female names end up in the trash pile. They hire white men like themselves. That's been proven over and over again. I can't believe that anybody is still pushing that outdated nonsense. We are still nowhere near the balance we need to have of women in powerful positions, and those who make it still have to slog through some creepy mens' sh!t to get there. But the tables will turn!
  11. Oh, you're one of Bernier's white supremacist thugs! I saw video, punching a man and ripping his sign because it celebrated "inclusion". Why is it that white supremacists never want to acknowledge that that's what they are? Ashamed of the truth?
  12. Well, you're certainly saying ridiculous things now. I guess that kind of extremist illogic flies in your social milieu? Lol I guess we can be grateful that you don't aspire to politics. I heard that pathetic loser bigot Maxime Bernier say some pretty ignorant things last night, but I don't think even he would publicly stoop as low as you have ... though his violent white supremacist thug followers might.
  13. The same treatment for all always seems the simplest to simple minds that can't comprehend the complexities of real life. But in reality, racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of personal and systemic discrimination and bigotry do exist, and do result in unequal treatment of some people. It is not "special privileges" to provide laws and means to try to compensate for society's discrimination and mistreatment of some groups of people. Also, in Canada we have, and we will continue to have, 3 sets of laws - Aboriginal Law, French Civil Code, and British Common Law - because we have 3 founding peoples. That won't change. Your nonsense proposals may trick some uneducated and less intelligent people, and may appeal to ill-intentioned far-right bigots and white supremacist propagandists, but your proposals are just nasty nonsense, nonetheless. You disrespect Canada's legal reality, disrespect Canada itself. Love it or leave it!
  14. Unfortunately, not the case. Employers can, under certain conditions, employ TFW's for less than minimum wage: https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/foreign-workers/median-wage/low/requirements.html#h2.5
  15. Oh ffs. Nobody's invading us. Get a grip. And yes, we should be ashamed, and correct the substandard living conditions in Indigenous communities.
×
×
  • Create New...