I love Charlie Angus, I’m proud he’s from northern Ontario (I love Cobalt & the tri-towns)
Canada is lucky to have Mr. Angus in this time.
Oh fuck yes.
This guy gets it.
I hope this goes viral. It really is incredible.
Man, Charlie Angus has really been the man of moment here. He’s doing the same speech all over this country, seen it in a bunch of places. I know that sounds like a criticism - how can he be genuine when he’s repeating himself and refining the message? Isn’t that just a stump speech?
But it’s not. First of all, anyone who knows Charlie Angus’ record knows this isn’t new territory for him.
Second, the reason this feels so genuine is because it’s how WE feel. We aren’t being told what to think, we’re having our feelings put into words right in front of us.
And finally, these lines aren’t stupid slogans or focus group tested pablum. These are things I’ve heard other Canadians say to each other, things I’ve said, way before any political leader was saying it. He’s speaking in plain and easy language, in the exact terms Canadians think about this.
Populism and patriotism are heady, dangerous drugs. So quickly, they can pour over into mob-mentality, anti-intellectualism and nationalism. We have to be careful, and we have to be smart. But right now, man, I am riding this high. Elbows up!
I appreciate that he also takes time to focus on a positive message. Democracy, diversity, all that. Populist movements that celebrate diversity are just not that scary to me.
I saw him live at an earlier event. He’s a fantastic speaker. 🔥🔥🔥wish he was NDP leader. He’s the left populist Canada needs.
Hes totally got Jack Layton vibes, but more working class, like your neighbourhood peewee hockey coach that isn’t a dick
We need him. I’m devastated he’s quitting politics.
Who knows if he’s actually quitting for good considering the attention he’s getting right now. He’s almost more vocal now even
He’s not currently running in his riding of Timmins.
Eh, I see this guy around and hear his speeches now and then. I don’t really find his speaking points all that convincing, and some are not quite the ‘win’ that gets depicted.
Like saying we all support DEI is nice and all, but he acts like he doesn’t even know what it is or why there are a lot of guys (typically) who are pissed off about it. Like I’m an older millennial, who has memories of being explicitly denied employment with the government because I didn’t “Identify as an equity employment group” – which is defined as any non-male or non-caucasian person (so no cis white guys were allowed to get past round 1 of the application for the jobs I was applying for). I was also asked, and stupidly/naively agreed, to step aside for scholarships/bursaries so that women could win the awards and pad my highschools stats - something that meant I had to work all through university, while those awards went to 1%er women who were too busy vacationing in their summer homes to even bother going to the award ceremonies. Our government literally releases a report about hitting its DEI hiring and promotion quotas – it’s less about finding the best person for a position, and more about determining the minimum requirements, and then shortlisting people based on race. It’s not a meritocracy once implemented, even though its proponents like to claim as such. And from a white guys perspective, seeing a bunch of women and minorities in power, who block you from getting a job / benefits because there are… too many white guys who have privilege… ain’t gonna leave a positive perspective on the thing. Like imagine if everyone you interacted with was a white guy, and when you tried to work with them, they said “Nah man, too many women / minorities work here, go somewhere else” – that’d feel like blatant discrimination, but when the races are reversed its celebrated as DEI.
There’re very real, historical issues that some of us have with these programs and the way they’re implemented. Similar story for being ‘woke’, and how adherence to some ‘woke’ principles means denying science/evidence – Canada implementing legislation that makes it criminal to discuss non-scientific/subjective-based things, like blind adherence to a narrative about history, is an easy example. Rich old white guys pretending like its not an issue, aren’t speaking to the “young” (under 50) disenfranchised male voters who’ve been negatively impacted by it on a personal level. Charlie/the left acting like it’s “Support DEI or else you don’t support Canada!” is nonsense. Politicians / white guys like Charlie, who did well and avoided all the negative stuff about these sorts of programs, aren’t great spokespeople – let’s see some guys who have lived through the negatives of DEI up there supporting it, guys who’ve lost job opportunities / career paths due to its implementation and their gender/race, doubt you’ll find too many who’d cheer it on. Like bring out Erin Weir, the guy who Jagmeet Singh kicked outta the NDP due to an unfounded accusation of misconduct – when investigated, the most they found was that he raised his voice when talking about the carbon tax, and that he stood a bit too close in the elevator sometimes. Get him to explain how his getting kicked out for BS reasons is actually “good” and “Canadian”.
The liberals will likely win this round, but its more because of anti-american sentiment, than a sudden embracing of this sort of nonsense – sorta like ford riding a patriotic wave back into office, despite his policies / history. If the left/progressives don’t pay attention to these sorts of concerns, things’ll just fester. Asking men to vote against their interests didn’t work in the USA. Some areas in the states have realised this and are trying to do better – NBC just had a piece highlighting whitmer and moore attempting to build more programs to support young men. Let’s hope it doesn’t take similar circumstances for the Canadian left to do better.
You might want to do some research on your last “blatant” example. It really degrades the rest of your arguments and highlights the ignorance that guides most anti-DEI sentiment.
Semi fair, removed.
Based on Canada’s own posting, the HPV vaccine was made available to women in 2008. It was later made available to boys in 2017, based on what I referenced obliquely in terms of scientists going “Oh my, boys have higher rates!”. So it still fits.
The case from my childhood was more muddle, admittedly – a different vaccine (Hep B) – I admittedly don’t keep a close tab on these things. It does make more sense, as part of a regular health check screening to do with a foreign partner I had started dating, my doc recommended I get a Hep B vaccine prior to getting intimate. Elementary school, early 90s, fits with Canadas vaccine schedules and with the adult vaccine top up.
So you removed the argument, then defend it, again with no sources?
Yeah, this is typical of the men I know who cry victim.
Take some time to reflect man.
Eh? O… k… here?
There’s your source for the HPV vaccine being available to girls in 2008, and only made available to boys in 2017 A doc straight from the BC CDC website.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/hpv-vaccine-the-growing-campaign-for-including-boys-1.3127916
There’s a CBC article showing that there was a growing campaign to try and include boys in the HPV vaccine around 2015. They literally quote David Brennan, an associate professor at the Faculty of Social Work at UT, saying “I know our health ministry is committed to equity and I believe that we’re a little bit behind the times in terms of addressing this equitable health issue for boys and men”. So you literally had health care professionals calling out the gender-based discrimination that had lasted for about a decade. Some provinces started including boys as early as 2013 – others waited till later.
Providing you internet sources in regards to my specific case from the 90s is more difficult, because there was… barely… an internet at that time. It wasn’t common for schools to communicate via email, or for govt to post information online. I did have an explicit chat with my mom at the time, who was annoyed that I couldn’t get the shot because I was a boy – and we couldn’t afford to get it privately at the time, so I was not covered until much later in life. Apologies if I didn’t remember the specific vaccine from when I was a kid, but your response and open antagonism is unwarranted. Especially given that a quick google search, brought up those above links, and support my overall statements. I removed the specific example, as explaining the differences between vaccines / time lines, was going to be overly onerous, and would’ve muddled the rest of the items I’d listed – and as it was a later point that got added, it made sense to just clip it. It’s not some “cry victim” thing where I turn tail and run when you challenge my stance. As I’ve hopefully demonstrated by responding to your comment here.
deleted by creator
Already hashed this out with another poster. If you look through it, there’s a link to articles where university profs were admitting that it was an equity issue, and that they’d failed boys.
As far back as 2007, when the vaccine came in, there was evidence it’d help men / boys out with HPV related cancers and issues. Some of the studies explicitly stated that they should be doing more work to highlight the situation for groups such as gay men, who were left out of the whole ‘herd immunity’ concept altogether when it came to the govt policies and initial roll outs. These studies and the gender-biased implications that were noted, were ignored while the government made the vaccine free for girls. They only looked at cervical cancer, and with those blinders they only funded it for girls. Until boys/men started protesting more, and people pointed out that male rates of various HPV related issues were far higher than that of girls, because ‘duh’ vaccines, and the policies slowly started changing.
If things like historic approaches to heart attack treatments, having things like symptoms only track what “male” symptoms look like, is systemic sexism against women – then this is easily an example of system sexism against men. And again, there’s third party sources of univ profs cited in Canada’s national news agency in the other discussion thread, supporting this statement, so its not just some rando online alone making this assertion. I don’t really care to debate it more.
Ya ya ya I get that. I already deleted my comment before you responded, guess this app lags.
My issue with this is that, with all the ways the medical community has failed women over the centuries, and still does, I just don’t understand why you’re focusing so heavily on the one time recently that boys were left behind.
Do you advocate for equitable medical studies and treatment when girls are left behind, too, or is it just to prove a point?
Some points I understand your frustration, but now if you flip sides and see that that happens to women and minorities all the time, for decades past and even now.
Imagine being a woman of colour that is interested in a typically male field, she would not stand a chance, while the good old boys go for a boat ride and beer to solidify a hire.
DEI might be a poor implementation of a good thing, and occasionally screw a white dude. Hopefully we have a more low level system one day where all people have access to care, training and funds so everyone gets a shot by merit.
Some points I understand your frustration, but now if you flip sides and see that that happens to women and minorities all the time, for decades past and even now.
Are you saying wampus is totally okay to suffer because someone else did? That sounds like vengeance.
Or because someone else victimized someone else? That sounds like collective punishment.
Or that he should be happy to be barred from a vaccine when it was suitable for him based on genetic makeup?
You seemed to be saying “change one intrinsic attribute and it if feels wrong, then it is” except then you kinda lost the plot.
You are fishing for words that aren’t there. Move on troll
No woman in my age range that I’ve encountered in real life has stories of being denied employment due to their race/gender – unless they’ve immigrated from another country. Many men in my friend circles do. I’ve literally seen women government regulators say to industry “I can’t work with these people”, and excuse almost every male from a board of directors.
I don’t deny that women were treated poorly in generations past when it came to the labour force. My point is that for the current generation that’s coming up, it has been almost completely flipped. The gender imbalance in the federal public service, is now more lopsided in favour of women, than it was in favour of men in the 1980s when this sort of legislation first came in. We reached relative ‘parity’ around 2000 – two decades, a whole generation of people, and we’re still preferencing women as though they’re this poor downtrodden minority, and we just watched that imbalance get more and more out of whack. But there’s no talk of relaxing those pro-woman hiring policies amongst politicians, let alone enacting pro-male hiring campaigns to sort out the “new” imbalance/reality. Just an authoritarian, discussion killing mantra of “Canada is DEI!!”.
DEI and woke stuff is not inherently Canadian. Framing the current issues and political issues with the states, as being “Canada is woke and DEI! And the states hates us for it!” is not helping things.
That might be survivor bias no? The employed people you talk to in your age range are employed, you aren’t hearing from the person that is moving somewhere else because of lack of job.
As a white dude that has been privvy to conservative male bosses, I have heard direct statements of :
-
we won’t hire HER because she might get pregnant
-
we won’t hire HER because she won’t know about mechanical things (even though resume was from a tool shop)
-
he didn’t get hired because he was black, he was the best candidate, but the owner doesn’t like black people (owner was Asian)
-
