Peter MacKay has made a huge mistake. This week, in an attempt to explain why we don’t see more diversity among federal judges, he ended up sparking a war with feminists, liberals, minorities, mothers, judges, and just about everyone else.
According to MacKay, our federal courts lack diversity, with few women, minorities, and Aboriginal justices. His reason why? “They just aren’t applying,” because woman have a “special bond” with their children. Let the battle begin: Peter MacKay vs feisty mommies.
In the wake of his inflammatory comments, we’ve learned a few important tidbits about our Minister of Justice:
1. He doesn’t love his son as much as his wife does:
MacKay’s comment about the ever-so-sacred motherly bond comes as a bit of a shock, considering that MacKay is a new father. What does this imply about his family dynamic? Are we back in the 1950s, where mommy takes care of baby all day long while daddy is away being a man, rolling in the dough, and supporting his family? Maybe that’s how your family works, Mr. MacKay, but I’m sure any working mother or stay-at-home dad would have to disagree.
Just think about the deprived children of gay parents, or of single dads! They must have a rough life without this “special bond”.
Poor Baby MacKay, whose daddy will never love him quite as much as mommy does.
2. He thinks fact-checking is over-rated:
Turns out he might not be 100% accurate, either.
A female, Chinese lawyer expressed her rage at MacKay, saying that she’s known many qualified non-white, non-male applicants who’ve applied, including herself. Complaining about not getting enough applications loses a bit of credibility if you don’t even look at the ones you receive.
Then again, how would he even know who’s applying? According to an Ottawa lawyer, there’s no data or statistics on diversity in applications, so these claims could really just be a pile of mumbo jumbo. Throw in some random numbers to justify himself, and MacKay would be doing math, Hudak-style.
You don’t have time for fact-checking, Mr. MacKay. Don’t you have some woman to do that for you?
3. He’s definitely not a feminist:
I know, shocking. In a time when you can’t go a day without hearing the latest feminist buzzword (what is this “equality” thing?), is it wise of Mr. MacKay to suggest that women just might not be suited for judgeship?
Time to get your head out of the sand, Peter. Women can do anything men can do these days. And they don’t need no man to help them. Seriously, watch out. You’ve got a lot of angry women on your hands, and telling them what careers they’re suitable and not suitable for is not a good plan.
No wonder you’re having trouble getting applications from women: maybe they just don’t want to interact with the anti-equality “old boys” on the bench.
MacKay was not out to impress feminists, and the crazy commenters have taken their anger to the comment sections of our national news sources. The latest party game: spot the angry woman/mother/feminist! Next time, maybe MacKay should run his statements by his PR team, or, at least, his wife.
Maybe if he loses the next election, he’ll consider being a stay-at-home-dad! Nah, he’s far too much of a man for such womanly tasks.
4. He’s just a typical Tory:
CONservative? Get it? People just love party-puns. Whether or not this is actually a party mindset is an entirely different issue, but, of course, Canadians have been quick to put the blame on the government.
Some lovely commenters on the Star sum up the assumed Conservative mindset: “well what do you expect from MacKay and Harper Conservatives? they believe women should stay home and look after the babies. MacKay even said it!!” and in reply: “THAT’S the way they think; keep ’em barefoot, pregnant, barefoot, and in the kitchen.”
Watch it, MacKay. You wouldn’t want to make your party look bad. Conservatives and non-Conservatives alike are getting fired up at MacKay’s lack of judgement (“judge”-ment?). Please, don’t make this into a party issue. Or a feminist issue. Or a parenting issue. Just go back to being the “sexiest MP” and try not to start feminist flame wars.