Are you interpreting Proportional Representation to mean gender quotas?

I’m a feminist and oppose it because it’s bringing sex into a place sex shouldn’t even be thought about.

You’re defending the man who ignored the recommendations of the Committee on Electoral Reform in favour of his partisan wants.

You do not fix problems by not acknowledging them. Sonia Furstenau understands this and has numerous times supported proportional representation to increase the civility and respect in our politics.

“The origins of our parliament, modelled on the U.K.’s Westminster system, go back to the 13th century. Its traditions remain embedded in its physical design: two parties, government and opposition, sit on opposite sides of the aisle. Famously, the distance between them is the equivalent of two sword-lengths to prevent literal duels from breaking out. This is a diametric, adversarial system of governance.”

“A system that recognizes that most issues are not black and white and that British Columbians cannot simply be divided into two partisan camps will enable us to find better paths forward.”

“Do we want an adversarial, two-party system that pits us against each other, or do we want a collaborative, consensus-based democracy where many views are represented?”

All the while putting a band-aid on and turning a blind eye to the core issues of why there are fewer women interested in politics as a career.

First-past-the-post has been evidently shown to increase political hostility. You win races by attacking the other opponent and guess which gender faces more disproportionately harsh criticisms for their character.

All the while putting a band-aid on and turning a blind eye to the core issues of why there are fewer women interested in politics as a career.

Honestly, it’s like calling yourself a feminist and then complaining about chivalry being dead.

This is projection while as you’re actively opposing one of the best ways to address the systemic issues women face in our society.