It starts with choosing to “do” politics in ways that don’t reinforce the masculine blueprint.Sadly, that is about the most ambitious proposal its big thinkers have come up with.
I'm sympathetic to changing the masculine blueprint, sure. Then what? When I read on and see the solutions provide by the contributors, it's hard to see any pathways to real and significant change.
The contributors are against the masculine blueprint, against hyper-partisanship, against the inability of MPs to get their own bills considered, They are for digital participation in parliamentary sittings, for better working conditions, for making MPs' constituency newsletters more widely available, and for better data on minority representation in the House and Senate. Well, sure. (Not so sure on the benefits of digital parliaments, actually.)
As to thinking about how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work, how it has worked in the past, how it actually works in other parliamentary countries, and what specific ways Canada suffers by ignoring the norms and principles? Identity politics is not going to do any of those things.
It is to weep.
