Well this should be obvious in any case, and should be heeded in any distribution of cabinet member genders/ages/religions etc.
But, it's funny how no-one brings up that point when a cabinet is a male majority, even though as a statement it is just as valid.
Consider this, given that men and women are equally capable to perform cabinet duties, and given that the gender ratio in Canada is roughly 50/50, then statistically a cabinet chosen solely on merit is likely to be an even 50/50 gender split (plus or minus a small margin).
What this also means, is that if there is a statistically significant skewing of the ratio (say a 70/30 split, such as David Camerons cabinet in England) it is actually more likely that this cabinet has been chosen for reasons other than just qualifications/capability to perform the job at hand. Essentially, male cabinet members are being chosen for the fact that they are male, rather than their qualifications.
However, when a male dominated cabinet like Camerons is revealed, nobody questions the qualifications of the chosen cabinet members. When a gender equal cabinet is revealed, suddenly people start to suspect that people have been chosen for reasons other than qualifications, despite the fact that this assumption runs counter to the statistics.
Rather curious, isn't it.