Poll:Minimum quotas for female election candidates?

Big Ears

Let me see what else is discrimination ............stopping a male candidate from being elected over a female one evn though he has more votes , just because of his gender .

'Yes, it should be democratic.
Women make up just over half the population yet they're a tiny minority in government. I don't think thats democratic at all, do you?'

You don't really understand what democracy means do you ?

Lioness

The Corinthian wrote:

What is the basis for you forming that opinion?

Women aren't portrayed in the media as being of a political nature. Its just the mindset of society, culture etc. I think its always been like this. Its an observation I have. I mean since when has there been any promotion / advertising or general articles written about womens political movements / orgs? or any major corporate sponsorship of such organisations? or when have womens aspirations/ thoughts about politics been documented by any form of media? Theres no awareness. Theres nothing to inspire women.

The onus is upon you to prove that your opinions, when stated as fact, are indeed that.

I never stated my opinions as fact! I said my statements were an opinion, an observation, a viewpoint. You have conveniently ignored this.
You have failed to challenge my opinion. Plain to see. It must be the 3rd time I've said this.

Blaming “male dominated government” for its failings and suggesting that women should be more involved does not sound like you think it would not make any difference.

Its futile to twist my words into a debate about what they do or don't sound like to you. It only diverts the discussion.

an unjust demand would be met with hostility, by the majority,

Yes an unjust demand from workers would be met with hostility from management if it was against the law.
Thats common sense.

The second was showing up the fact that you were coming out with a tautology

Thats not a fact thats an opinion you dreamed up.

I even went so far as to explain it to you.

:rolleyes: I quote your response, "nice tautology". You didnt even give an explanation as to why you arrived at such a conclusion. Its pretty evident, through your use of irony and sarcasm that you were unable to challenge my response.

Both were valid rebuttals,

I disagree. A valid rebuttal should be clear, not hidden behind irony and sarcasm and actually challenge the response or provide another viewpoint.

self-interest does not seek equality,

What makes you come to such a conclusion??
Its about promoting and advancing womens rights and privileges so that they are equal with men. E.G, women had an interest in having equal promotion opportunites as men. A law was established to satisfy this interest. Equality was seeked and was achieved in this area.
How easy to defy your logic !!

thus if by accident equality is achieved while pursuing self-interest - it is just that; by accident

?? What is the actual result of your point?? What actually is your point??!!

I don’t think you understood them, TBH.

I didnt understand the reason for introducing him to the argument.

Meh

Lioness wrote:

Theres not a proportionate amount of women on the ballot paper in the 1st place!! So it isnt actually possible for female voters to negate the disadvantage.

Yes it is, they can stand for election themselves. But of course, it's easier to whine about male oppression than it is to, y'know, get off your arse and go make a difference.

Women aren't portrayed in the media as being of a political nature. Its just the mindset of society, culture etc. I think its always been like this. Its an observation I have. I mean since when has there been any promotion / advertising or general articles written about womens political movements / orgs? or any major corporate sponsorship of such organisations? or when have womens aspirations/ thoughts about politics been documented by any form of media? Theres no awareness. Theres nothing to inspire women.

Why do women need to be told to be interested in politics? Are they incapable of realizing what's in their own interest? That's quite a patronizing patriarchal attitude you have there...

Zulu

Lioness wrote:

No, just informing you that you used the word "appeals less to" instead of the word oppression or discourage.

It's a shame you didn't notice that in the first place. It would have saved me some time. So let me remind you what you said :

Lioness wrote:

I think society and the culture we have here discourages women to enter politics. You have admitted so yourself.

I don't believe this is true, I don't believe society discourages women; I believe that women are less likely to enter politics because they are women.

Lioness wrote:

So politics is "less appealing" for women (you have said this about 2 posts ago), because of their "physical make-up and genetics" ,??

Granted - it doesn't sound great when you put it like that, agreed, but...
Incredibly, men and women are physically different, and mentally different. This is caused by the fact that their bodies are made up differently. The easiest differences to spot are physical ones, the more subtle ones ie emotions/ taught patterns are more subtle. So why is there obviously differences between male and female thinking and preferences? What could possibly cause the differences, society, or something else; some physical attribute? If it's society - why then do the differences span different societies? Is society the sole reason men are more aggressive physically? Is society the sole reason men are more likely to hunt for sport than women? Or is human nature a bit bigger than society?

Lioness wrote:

That statement is disgraceful in this day and age and is nothing short of discrimination.

No, it's nothing short of scientific fact. Are you now denying that men and women are physically different, that these differences had led them into different roles? <edit>are you calling this discrimination??? </edit>

Lioness wrote:

But your discriminatory attitude gives weight to the point I was making. Its these attitudes that create the barrier against women in politics.

<edit>who said anything about trolls and elves and dwarfs?? </edit>

Lioness wrote:

I quote you " FYI: In society...."
Geez, you might wanna remember what you actually said!!

Or perhaps you should listen. :rolleyes:

Batbat

no of course not, its is not ****ed up America, with PC over the top positive discrimination laws

The Corinthian

Lioness wrote:

Women aren't portrayed in the media as being of a political nature. Its just the mindset of society, culture etc. I think its always been like this. Its an observation I have. I mean since when has there been any promotion / advertising or general articles written about womens political movements / orgs? or any major corporate sponsorship of such organisations? or when have womens aspirations/ thoughts about politics been documented by any form of media? Theres no awareness. Theres nothing to inspire women.

I would have thought that the promotion of women as a political estate is quite prevalent in the media – in the last presidential election satirists were rolling around in laughter at the fact that the political parties were falling over themselves to field women candidates.

I don’t really see where you’re getting at with the promotion / advertising or general articles written about women’s political movements / orgs? If we’re talking about women being more involved in the political system, then it should not be a women’s political movement, simply women in a political movement. Otherwise, you’re talking about a completely different creature; a ‘women’s party’, and then apparently defending quotas so that it can gain automatic legitimacy.

I never stated my opinions as fact! I said my statements were an opinion, an observation, a viewpoint. You have conveniently ignored this.
You have failed to challenge my opinion. Plain to see. It must be the 3rd time I've said this.

Actually, you’ll note that you state your assertions as fact and then give an opinion based upon them. It is these assertions that are being challenged, not what you derive from them.

Even, if you claimed that the initial assertions are simply opinion that is not a license for us to blindly accept everything you say. If your opinions are based upon anything other than imagination or prejudice, then you have a basis to hold them. Otherwise you’re talking through your ass - no matter how many times you hide behind the excuse of opinion.

Its futile to twist my words into a debate about what they do or don't sound like to you. It only diverts the discussion.

I don’t need to twist your words. Or are all the others (e.g. Simu – who’s still waiting for an answer to her questions, btw) who read the same thing coincidentally twisting them in the same way?

Yes an unjust demand from workers would be met with hostility from management if it was against the law.
Thats common sense.

An unjust demand would be met with hostility regardless of whether it is legal or not. The irony I pointed out is that your ‘opinion’ is presently being met with such hostility.

Thats not a fact thats an opinion you dreamed up.

Really? Let me remind you of what you said then: “As long as no unfair demands are made there can be no unfair demands” - that’s called a tautology.

:rolleyes: I quote your response, "nice tautology". You didnt even give an explanation as to why you arrived at such a conclusion. Its pretty evident, through your use of irony and sarcasm that you were unable to challenge my response.

Here's where I highlighted it. Would you like me to explain it to you with pictures?

I disagree. A valid rebuttal should be clear, not hidden behind irony and sarcasm and actually challenge the response or provide another viewpoint.

And my rebuttals were clear and frankly far more civil than they should have been. You have however been the only individual in this thread who has been unable to comprehend them.

What makes you come to such a conclusion??

Common sense, human nature, the second axiom of utility – take your pick.

Its about promoting and advancing womens rights and privileges so that they are equal with men. E.G, women had an interest in having equal promotion opportunites as men. A law was established to satisfy this interest. Equality was seeked and was achieved in this area.
How easy to defy your logic !!

No. It’s about promoting and advancing women’s rights and privileges. The question of making them equal with men is simply a moral justification – after all, would Feminism disband if it achieved such equality or continues to promote and advance women’s rights and privileges?

In this regard, the Feminist movement is no different to trade unions or any group that seeks to represent a segment of society.

?? What is the actual result of your point?? What actually is your point??!!

The point, which is repeatedly escaping you, is that the aim is promoting and advancing the rights and privileges of the represented group, not to so simply to gain equality then call it a day, or to refuse to promote or advance a right or privilege that would be unfair to the other group(s) in Society.

Many women’s groups routinely oppose father’s rights, for example. Is that seeking equality, or simply protecting their own?

I didnt understand the reason for introducing him to the argument.

I was simply pointing out that you have become the very shovanist that you claim to be against.

bonkey

Lioness wrote:

No, unfair and just not democratic.

So unfair and not democratic isn't wrong?

If its not wrong, then why does it need to be corrected?

I think its because of the general consensus created by society, roles, culture, media etc surrounding the political arena.

I asked why women who have overcome these disadvantages cannot start encouraging other women to do the same, because these problems are exactly the root cause of what you've an issue with.

Making the point a different way...if its society which is at fault, then women - being part of society - are as much to blame as men, so why should it be the men who have to fix it? Why can't women look after their own, or at least share in the responsibility to work towards the solution?

If its male-dominated aspects of society that you meant as being the problem, then why on earth would you expect the men who created, persist and take advantage from the problem to be the ones to resolve it, rather than the women who have overcome the disadvantages and have gotten past the blocks and are in a position to help their fellow women overcome the same disadvantages????

Asking the men to do it is like asking a heroin dealer to lecture in drug-rehab, rather than a rehabilitated drug-abuser, if you see men as the problem.

I never said that. I think it was 'Justhalf' who insisted that.

Further up on the same page as where I made that comment you said :

Although theres no excuse for them being cr@p at their jobs. They've been involved in politics for years and years.

So I beg to differ : you did say it....so maybe you could go back and address the question I was asking? Is it not counter-intuitive to expect these people to solve a problem when enough people caring about fixing the problem can democratically do it themselves?

So you would be in favour of implementing them in the long run? As a last resort? Because thats what you seem to be implying.

Not necessarily. I would be opposed to even considering the idea until it was the last resort. At that point, and at that point only, I would be willing to consider the idea to see if it had merit given what had been tried, what the outcome of those attempts was, and some other issues.

Talking about quotas as a solution before trying other avenues is - in my mind - counter-productive. Its like a union trying to deal with a problem in a company and saying "well, we could always go on strike" before trying any of the other options. Once the option is voiced and discussed, then if striking seems an easier option, it is what will be done, regardless of whether or not it is the best path.

Quotas as discussed here, like strikes, should only be an option of last resort, in my opinion.

I don't support every strike which is taken as a last resort...but I do oppose any strike which isn't taken as a last resort.

Similarly, I am opposed to even considering quotas as a solution until it is an option of last resort....but if and when it becomes an option of last resort...I may still be opposed.

Theres not a proportionate amount of women on the ballot paper in the 1st place!!

Yes, I know that. The point I was making was that when there is an opportunity for women to vote for women - to do something about the inequality themselves rather than crying out "poor me...you must change the system for me" - they don't take it.

So it isnt actually possible for female voters to negate the disadvantage.

No, but its possible to offset some of it, and thats not being done.

I think the lack of young voters is because of the general perception they have of politics - its boring!

So women are lacking because "of the general consensus created by society, roles, culture, media etc surrounding the political arena.", but youth because "its boring".

What about young women? Which of the two categories do they fall in to?

Sounds to me like you're making your choice of societal sub-group (women) to be disadvantaged through some form of oppression, but making out that the other under-represented groups (like youth) are, well, just not really an issue worthy of equal attention.

Kind of going a bit off topic...

Not really. I was pointing out - as I've just done again - that women are not the only under-represented group. I'm asking why women should be a special case deserving of corrective measures when there are plenty of other groups also under-represented.

If you like, its another reason why quotas for women is a bad idea - it doesn't tackle the base problem...only the base problem as applied to one subgroup in society.

jc

bonkey

Zulu wrote:

I am convinced now that you are in fact a troll.

Please re-read the charter. Allegations of trollery are no longer acceptable in-thread.

If you have an issue with a poster, report them. If you don't have an issue, then don't make allegations like this.

Having said that...a bit more civility all round wouldn't go astray.

jc

Zulu

My apologies, but my having to repeat myself is getting a bit much.
Again I apologise. I'll remove the comment.

Batbat

I think the poll result speaks for itsself, the 5% who voted yes are just the crazy minority, however you could make the argument that the majority is not always correct, see recent referendum results, so perhaps the 5% arent crazy after all.

On this point ill gladly go with the majority

Stabshauptmann

It might be a genitic thing: left and right lobe dominance etc or a social thing, but the fact remains that there are less women involved in politics. Forcing parties to have a min quota of female canditates is not a fair representation of society and is damaging to a party if there was a more suitable (experience, qualified or popular) canditate to go forward.
I disagree with this idea.

Zulu

Necromancer wrote:

It might be a genitic thing: left and right lobe dominance etc or a social thing, but the fact remains that there are less women involved in politics. Forcing parties to have a min quota of female canditates is not a fair representation of society and is damaging to a party if there was a more suitable (experience, qualified or popular) canditate to go forward.
I disagree with this idea.

Apparently you're being discriminatory and these attitudes that create the barrier against women in politics. :rolleyes:
See post #121

JustHalf

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually, it does. Logic will generally come to a proof using deduction, which requres that one must arrive at a truth by following a path of varifiable evidence.

Ah, my mistake. I'm confusing logic with reality; but that's a discussion for another day.

Lioness wrote:

Yes, it should be democratic.
Women make up just over half the population yet they're a tiny minority in government. I don't think thats democratic at all, do you? Before you start diverting the discussion to the demographics of the land try and stick to the topic at hand, :rolleyes:

Sorry, what I'm reading here is:

1) Here is a description of the demographics of the land
2) The demographics of parliament are not the same, or even close, to the demographics of the population in general
3) Because of point 2, this is not democratic
4) Please don't discuss demographics, stick to the topic at hand

I agree with points 1 and 2, but point 3 is a ridiculous leap. I don't think you understand what democracy means. You seem to have tagged on additional meaning to the word, and completely destroyed its original meaning.

Democracy does not mean equality. Democracy does not mean liberty. Democracy does not mean fairness. Democracy is the fair and free ballot box.

Your fourth point is a bit rich, considering that your first and second point are based on demographics.

The thing is, I don't see a problem with people trying to make sure women are better represented in government. It's your right to try to change your government. But you can get lost if you think that ballot reform is a sensible or valid way of doing it.

Say, for a given seat, that ten men and two women choose to run. A system meeting your requirements would have two options:

1) Tell some of the men that they can't run.
2) Find additional female candidates.

There is nothing democratic about the first option. How do you decide which of the male candidates can't run, assuming they've all met the current requirements? This is an insult to a free society.

The second is to find additional female candidates. But wait... no-one is excluded for running because they are female. Female candidates can run for office if they choose. Assuming you've met the basic requirements of office, if you choose to run for office you can. So you'd need to find additional female candidates who don't actually want to run for office. Do you not think this is misguided in the extreme?

I'm not sure that the lack of female candidates on ballot papers is indeed a problem, but if it is then the only reasonable way to solve it is to get women interested in politics, and interested in running for office. You can't tell men they can't run for office because they're men, and you shouldn't be trying to get women to run for office when they don't actually want to run.

Your idea, quite frankly, is extremely misguided.

earwicker

JustHalf wrote:

Democracy does not mean equality. Democracy does not mean liberty. Democracy does not mean fairness. Democracy is the fair and free ballot box.

I'm puzzled by what you are driving at here. Democracy literally means rule [-cracy] by the people [demos-], and it has drawn on several combinations of your list over the course of its history.

As to your comments on the relation/ lack of relation of democracy to demographics: are you suggesting there is no relation? Could you expand?

pickarooney

JustHalf wrote:

Say, for a given seat, that ten men and two women choose to run. A system meeting your requirements would have two options:

1) Tell some of the men that they can't run.
2) Find additional female candidates.

In terms of advancing feminine represenation, would this actually be a bad situation? If a siginificant number of voters were then drawn to a particular candidate because of his/her gender as opposed to his/her party or policies, (and even in an egalitarian democracy, such things happen, unfortunately) given that roughly 50% of the electorate is female, each lady candidate has far more chance of attaining these votes from the female electorate, as the gender-biased votes would be split two ways between the women on the list and ten ways between the men.

If this isn't happening enough, is it because the women voters are uninterested in pursuing the avenue of positive discrimintation to the detriment of a possibly better candidate of the opposite sex?

The Corinthian

JustHalf wrote:

Ah, my mistake. I'm confusing logic with reality; but that's a discussion for another day.

If by reality you mean basing opinion upon superficial prejudice and cheap sentiment, then yes, you are. Nonetheless, it is probably a discussion for another thread rather than another day, as I suspect the latter will conveniently never dawn.