Juno News - October 14, 2022


Trudeau's inconsistent definition of diversity isn't helping anyone


Episode Stats


Length

6 minutes

Words per minute

174.821

Word count

1,172

Sentence count

57

Harmful content

Misogyny

10

sentences flagged

Toxicity

3

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

In this episode, I discuss the concept of "diversity" and how it is only a skin deep measure of the government's attempt to address the gender wage gap in Canada. I discuss why diversity is a bad idea and why the government is wrong about it.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Toxicity classifications generated with s-nlp/roberta_toxicity_classifier .
00:00:00.400 So let's start with the first one, diversity. Now there is merit to this idea of diversity.
00:00:05.600 If you think of the financial world, for example, in your financial portfolio, it's a good idea,
00:00:10.960 generally speaking, to be diversified because if you're invested in different areas, for example,
00:00:16.160 those stocks could react differently to the same event, therefore balancing risk and helping you
00:00:21.040 to achieve your long-term financial goals. This of course is not financial advice, but it is an
00:00:26.960 analogy to say that while in the financial world, diversity is a good thing, it is generally a good
00:00:33.040 principle to abide by. So while it's true that the principle of diversity is good, the government's
00:00:38.240 definition of diversity is only skin deep, which of course is very superficial. According to the
00:00:44.480 government's Employment Equity Act, there are four designated groups recognized under the act,
00:00:50.160 first women, then Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, and also visible minorities.
00:00:56.800 So as the theory goes, the government thinks that these groups are discriminated against,
00:01:02.080 and they come up with affirmative action policies and programs to try to redress that discrimination.
00:01:08.320 One example of such policies, of course, would be gender balancing the cabinet. So as just a quick 1.00
00:01:13.520 explainer for those who might not be familiar, in Canada, the prime minister actually chooses his or
00:01:18.240 her own cabinet. So he or she will assign ministers to head certain ministries, such as the minister of
00:01:25.440 finance, for example, or defense. Those are all appointed by the prime minister of Canada.
00:01:30.000 As you heard in the opening clip, Trudeau made a commitment to gender balance the cabinet, meaning
00:01:35.360 appoint approximately half of all cabinet ministers as women. And this is apparently necessary because of 1.00
00:01:42.720 the year, which at the time was 2015. Unsurprisingly, there are a lot of issues with that. And let's
00:01:47.920 start with number one, it's logically inconsistent. The very first question that needs to be asked of this
00:01:53.680 government is. Are women different than men? Because the fact that they say a gender balanced cabinet 1.00
00:01:59.680 is required, would imply that yes, women are different from men, because if 50% of cabinet must be women, 1.00
00:02:06.960 clearly they bring something different to the table. They're different than men. But at the same time,
00:02:12.240 this government talks so constantly and frequently about the gendered wage gap in this country, which would
00:02:18.240 imply that women are in fact, not different than men. They're saying men and women do the same jobs,
00:02:23.920 make the same choices, yet they're being paid differently. So which is it? Are men and women
00:02:28.240 the same or are they different? Famed psychologist, Dr. Jordan Peterson has elaborated often on the
00:02:34.640 psychological difference between men and women with respect to personality traits. He explains how
00:02:40.240 average differences in personality traits between men and women can actually lead to vastly different
00:02:45.840 choices in terms of career. For example, this is just one factor of many that can help account for
00:02:51.440 and explain the wage gap. Now the wage gap really does deserve its own dedicated show because it's
00:02:56.720 such a complicated issue and one that left us really reduced down to discrimination. But ultimately
00:03:02.960 at the end of the day, the point is that a disparity between average pay, for example, between two genders, 0.89
00:03:09.680 disparity is not evidence of discrimination. You really do need to identify tangible
00:03:15.200 discrimination in society and fight it at its source, not just simply state that two things
00:03:20.080 are different, therefore discrimination must have taken place. The second problem with the left's
00:03:23.680 approach to diversity is that of course it doesn't mean diversity of thought, which would actually be
00:03:28.880 beneficial. It refers more to diversity of skin color or genitalia. And the Jody Wilson-Raybould case
00:03:35.760 exposed just how superficial the government's notion of diversity is. So you can really start to see how
00:03:41.200 absurd this is that it's diversity to the left isn't about having a different opinion and finding
00:03:47.200 maybe some common ground or a new approach. It really is about all having the same opinion,
00:03:51.680 but looking different when you express it. This notion of diversity would be like having a financial
00:03:56.480 portfolio of all airline stocks, but saying, Hey, I'm diversified because all of the logos look
00:04:01.680 different. So just as it's really stupid and superficial to say a financial portfolio would be diversified 0.95
00:04:06.800 because you have companies that have a lot of different looking logos. It is equally as stupid 1.00
00:04:11.760 to say that your cabinet is diversified because you have different looking people. If they all act 1.00
00:04:16.880 and think the same, it's not diversity. Another problem with this superficial form of diversity
00:04:22.560 is that it doesn't actually fix the root causes. If you're going to have a gender balanced cabinet, 1.00
00:04:28.400 you're going to put 50% women in cabinet positions and 50% men that does nothing for women facing actual 1.00
00:04:34.800 discrimination. Now, this is a funny one because this is where the left actually starts to believe
00:04:39.760 in trickle down. Of course, they always criticize that argument on the right side of the aisle,
00:04:44.480 but they say, no, there will be trickle down effects. If you have female cabinet ministers, 1.00
00:04:49.120 their policies and lived experience will somehow translate and trickle down to women actually facing 1.00
00:04:55.360 discrimination because they'll change policies, et cetera, et cetera. But again, this kind of diversity
00:05:00.320 is not about diversity of thought. As we saw with Jody Wilson-Raybould, you're really not allowed
00:05:05.520 to disagree. And the issue with fighting systemic discrimination is that it's unclear how to actually
00:05:12.320 tackle that when it's this nebulous concept. You actually have to pinpoint where is the discrimination
00:05:17.920 happening and use the law to address it head on. So when the government focuses on disparities
00:05:23.600 instead of actual acts of discrimination, you're not changing anything. Really, the government's just
00:05:28.720 trying to play its hand to reshape society according to its own ideological vision. And the final
00:05:33.760 problem with the government's definition of diversity is that they focus on these four
00:05:39.120 designated groups that we mentioned. And of course, there's a lot of diversity within those groups.
00:05:44.160 That really is the problem with identity politics or affirmative action. It doesn't look at individuals,
00:05:49.680 which of course, vary greatly by categories as broad as woman. There are a lot of advantaged women in our 1.00
00:05:56.560 society and some disadvantaged women. So it really is problematic that the government talks about
00:06:02.240 diversity when it's not talking about individuals, it talks about their group identity. And in reality,
00:06:07.760 it's some of the most privileged within these four designated categories that the government has called
00:06:12.800 disadvantaged, that are best poised to take advantage of the affirmative action policies of the
00:06:18.080 government. Since these policies are being targeted based on group identity, not on the basis of being
00:06:22.800 disadvantaged. And ultimately, it's really problematic to treat members of a broad group as all the same,
00:06:28.480 because actually, they're quite different. All right, so that's the issue with the government's
00:06:32.560 take on quote, unquote, diversity.