Equal rights for women, not preferential treatment

Judt

This year is the EU's Year of Equal Opportunities for All, and a Beeb article has highlighted the issue of women in parliaments across Europe - you can read the article here. With the topic of Irish elections coming up as well this could be quite pertinent, but it's a general discussion to have in all elements of society.

Basically the gist of it is that women are under represented across much of the board, and that many countries political parties are trying to rectify this by selecting more female candidates, sometimes at the expense of incumbent male ones.

I think that this is bullcrap. In the Labour party in the UK they have managed to up their numbers of females in the EU parliament by selecting lists of candidates for the party to vote on - a list peppered with women, minorities and so on to offer "equality". In the conservative and other parties where the whole issue is open to a full vote, there are significantly less women.

My argument is that by putting forward more women, and people from minorities and so on, to promote "equality" you are, in fact, discriminating against the best and the brightest. The divide between who is best suited to do a job is not 50/50 women and men, and I believe that political parties, in cherry picking candidates to fit a particular demographic quota, are being unequal.

I know that women have suffered greatly over the years and have fought hard for equal representation. But I believe that we have missed the middle ground between discriminating between women and discriminating against all other people in order to ensure there is no perceived discrimination against women (Eg a cherry picked 50/50 male/female parliament).

Ideally I believe the situation should be that a skilled and qualified woman, or person from a minority or suchlike, should be as capable of winning a vote or being assigned a position as a man. IE there is no institutional bias against women to give them extra obstacles. I think that going to the extent of cherry picking women for political elections stifles the quality of candidates because, essentially, you are discriminating against the men.

Sure let's have equality, but equality means giving everyone an equal chance, not cherry picking so that you reach some arbitrary quota of "How many women should be in parliament" or suchlike.

johnnyskeleton

From my general observations, women seem to be dominating the higher points college courses, especially law. It may be only a matter of time before the vast majority of top professionals are female, and not because of positive discrimination, purely because (it would seem) women are better than men at law, medicine, accountancy etc. This is how it should be in a meritocracy.

Although a legal career is similar in many ways to a political one, there is perhaps a societal prejudice which may prevent women succeeding in politics. This is because (and here I get into speculation) men want another man to lead them, and it is strange, often threatening to the male mind to be led by a woman. Unfortunately, many women feel the same way and they also want to be led by a man rather than a woman. At any rate, being led by a man is not threatening to the female mind (or at least they don't let on).

I think that women are just as capable (if not more capable) of running a country as men are. If a woman is good enough, she will be elected. If she's not she won't be. A clever political party will put forward a good candidate of either gender if they think that candidate will win the seat.

Our last two presidents were female, and until late last year our tainiste (deputy prime minister) was female. This is in addition to cabinet ministers and other TDs, Senators, local politicians etc, and no one would suggest that they were elected on anything other than merit. So I must ask you, do you have any proof that this "cherry picking" is a deliberate policy of positive discrimination? Or is it that intelligent, articulate women are more attracted to the English Labour Party over the Tories?

metrovelvet

Its called positive discrimination.

I suspect in the back of people's minds, there will always be an insecurity around electing a woman who could possibly bear children and therefore get her priorities reshuffled, much like with any other job.

Additionally, there is the suspicion that sending a woman off to negotiate with men who wont listen to her or respect her, but will politely nod to her and then go to a backroom where the real negotiations happen - with other men-is dodgy at best for the good of the nation.

Condoleeza Rice for example is a bright woman, but how seriously do you think these pigs take her when she goes abroad.

Or Hillary Clinton, the feminist town crier who got political mileage out of her husband treating her like ****, as tough and ruthless and Lady M as she is, really, do you think anyone would take her seriously in international dialogue?

Memnoch

the reason no one takes condi seriously is not because she is a woman but because she is a member of the evil, corrupt and criminal bush administration.

Jackie laughlin

The "brightest and best" argument is nonsense. Leaving aside a very few careers and dismissing the insane, incompetent and poorly educated, of the rest most people can do most jobs rather well. With two more or less equal sexes, it is self evident that something is amiss when a job is dominated by one sex. The problem should be addressed by positive discrimination and, with lots of jobs around - there are hundreds of TDs - that doesn't prevent men achieving their ambitions.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

The "brightest and best" argument is nonsense. Leaving aside a very few careers and dismissing the insane, incompetent and poorly educated, of the rest most people can do most jobs rather well.

Rubbish. There are many jobs that many people simply don’t have the psychological, physical or mental aptitude for, independent of their gender, creed or race. That’s simply a fact of life.

Additionally, when choosing someone for a job, be it in a company or in an elected office, we don’t choose them on the basis that they’re “OK”, we choose them as they are the best available choice.

I really do find the idea of imposing gender quotas on democracy quite disturbing. We might as well juts give up the ghost on the whole democratic idea and call ourselves an oligarchy if that’s the road we’re taking, TBH. It’s also a policy that seeks to redress a perceived imbalance without bothering to understand what causes it in the first place.

And if not enough women were elected to meet the gender quota? I assume we would have a hung parliament then.

Jackie laughlin

Corinthian,
You've clearly never been involved in recruitment. That's a pity because it really provides great insight into the reality of human ability.

metrovelvet

Seriously, as much as it would be nice to see more women represented in politics, implimenting gender/racial quotas in political positions is entirely counter democratic and should be illegal.

simu

The problem is that it's hard for a woman to combine the life of a TD with daily family life (and despite our notions of equality, women still get saddled with most of this work). Milldred Fox, iirc, mentioned this recently as the reason she is quitting her post. The whole system was set up with men in mind and women are expected to just adapt but this isn't happening as the low figures of female participation show. I'm wary of the idea of quotas - it would make more sense to see how politics could be made more woman-friendly so that you would simply see more women getting involved and standing for elections themselves. But this would require a serious rethink, not just glib comments from parties that they're doing their best to attract more women.

Slow Motion

Jackie laughlin wrote:

The problem should be addressed by positive discrimination and.

Sorry but positive discrimination is still discrimination, not to mention an oxymoron, you can't have it both ways, you either believe in a free and democratic society where people get where they are by their own merits, or you believe in an inequal society where people get where they are because of discrimination in whateaver form.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Corinthian,
You've clearly never been involved in recruitment. That's a pity because it really provides great insight into the reality of human ability.

Quite the opposite. I have been involved in the recruitment for companies that I’ve been in or managed for years and one thing I’ve realised is that recruitment companies will often have the attitude that if they fling enough CV’s at you one is bound to fit. At best it’s an imperfect fit and certainly not the best person for the job, at worst it’s a disaster.

So, yes, I’ve been involved in recruitment, no, not everyone has the same aptitudes and yes, you’re still talking rubbish.

Judt

simu wrote:

The problem is that it's hard for a woman to combine the life of a TD with daily family life (and despite our notions of equality, women still get saddled with most of this work). Milldred Fox, iirc, mentioned this recently as the reason she is quitting her post. The whole system was set up with men in mind and women are expected to just adapt but this isn't happening as the low figures of female participation show. I'm wary of the idea of quotas - it would make more sense to see how politics could be made more woman-friendly so that you would simply see more women getting involved and standing for elections themselves. But this would require a serious rethink, not just glib comments from parties that they're doing their best to attract more women.

Bull. Just as the traditional role see's a male TD's wife keeping house, what's to say that a female TD can't have a house husband? If you can't adapt to the role then you shouldn't be in it. There's nothing inherently anti-female in the job of a TD, IE no barriers to doing the job created solely because you are a woman.

Men have families too.

Seriously, as much as it would be nice to see more women represented in politics, implimenting gender/racial quotas in political positions is entirely counter democratic and should be illegal.

Precisely.

metrovelvet

Judt wrote:

Bull. Just as the traditional role see's a male TD's wife keeping house, what's to say that a female TD can't have a house husband? If you can't adapt to the role then you shouldn't be in it. There's nothing inherently anti-female in the job of a TD, IE no barriers to doing the job created solely because you are a woman.

Men have families too.

Men also have wives to do this **** for them. Really how many house husbands do you know?

A woman can do this, if she has a couple of nannies to raise her kids for her. And even at that an electoral body or a even HR would have their doubts about her ability to commit.

Post menopausal women [Clinton & Harney] or suspected lesbians [Rice]. seem to be the most succcessful at politics.

simu

Judt wrote:

Bull. Just as the traditional role see's a male TD's wife keeping house, what's to say that a female TD can't have a house husband? If you can't adapt to the role then you shouldn't be in it. There's nothing inherently anti-female in the job of a TD, IE no barriers to doing the job created solely because you are a woman.

I guess it's just that easy, huh? Why are there so few women in politics then if things are so fair family and household tasks-wise? What's your explanation of the disparity? Do you think women are too lazy or unambitious or uninterested or what? Why pretend society is set up in a completely gender-neutral manner when it's plainly not?

Judt

Men also have wives to do this **** for them. Really how many house husbands do you know?

Yes, they're a minority, but they're a growing one. Men have left politics because they don't have the support of their spouses, and men have left their spouses because they didn't support their political career. Women can do that too - what I'm saying is that there is nobody sitting in a back room scheming up the situation which sees women artificially barred from politics because of this. Equality means equal risks and responsibilities as well as equal chances to succeed.

Post menopausal women [Clinton & Harney] or suspected lesbians [Rice]. seem to be the most succcessful at politics.

So women are choosing to go into these careers later or because they don't want kids or whatever. That's their choice, it's not forced upon them anymore (in the majority of cases. I will admit that there remain some inequalities, but we're not living in the 1920's at the same time either.)

I guess it's just that easy, huh? Why are there so few women in politics then if things are so fair family and household tasks-wise? What's your explanation of the disparity? Do you think women are too lazy or unambitious or uninterested or what? Why pretend society is set up in a completely gender-neutral manner when it's plainly not?

As I said above, it's about personal choices. If more men choose to "abandon" their families to pursue a life of politics then so be it; but the choice is there and open to women as well.

At the end of the day it is less democratic to cherry pick women over men, or change the nature of the job for women. So long as the choices are there - and they are hard choices to be sure - and there aren't artificial barriers to women entering a field then they can make the choices. If more women choose to remain with their families than enter politics - which is an all consuming career - then cherry picking women to make up some arbitrary quota is bull, and lowers the quality of the political body.

You can't force these things.

metrovelvet

Women are well past the stage of thinking they can have and do it all. If they want the career, they wont be seeing or raising their kids, nannies will be doing it. If they want the kids, they wont have the career, a job yes,career no, and they wont be anywhere in the same competitive league as childless women, or men, childless or not. Its just not going to happen.


However,the problem with this issue is that it is anti-electoral and deprives the public of appointing their politcal reps, which is not only nanny stating but borderline socialist/facist.

DadaKopf

judt wrote:

As I said above, it's about personal choices. If more men choose to "abandon" their families to pursue a life of politics then so be it; but the choice is there and open to women as well.

At the end of the day it is less democratic to cherry pick women over men, or change the nature of the job for women. So long as the choices are there - and they are hard choices to be sure - and there aren't artificial barriers to women entering a field then they can make the choices. If more women choose to remain with their families than enter politics - which is an all consuming career - then cherry picking women to make up some arbitrary quota is bull, and lowers the quality of the political body.

You can't force these things.

I guess you've never seen the blatant sexism in political societies and parties then. Your opinion makes my blood boil. The role of a TD may not be gendered, but our culture sure is, and that's the point. It's the concepts about women in politics that act as barriers to women becoming TDs.

And if you accept that it's fair and right for women to have equal opportunities, that extends to altering the culture.

And the question is: what methods can be used to bring about a culture that does not discriminate, that is egalitarian? And please, don't make your answer "not positive discrimination".

Make some constructive comments, ffs.

Seriously, judt, it's like you fear being emasculated or something. The horror.

Judt

DadaKopf,

I think you are aiming your strongly held beliefs at the wrong person - you're right, I'm not in political circles, and I agree with you that any artificial barriers should be removed. However, I think that having quotas of how many women should be in a parliament is going too far in the other direction, and is equally undemocratic.

The middle ground is where we should be - no special barriers in place to prevent women from a career, but no special hand-ups either. A female TD still has to canvass like crazy, spend long hours - if not most of the week - in Dublin (if she's a TD representing an area outside the capital); attend debates, functions and generally conduct the business of the house of representatives. This is a hard choice for a man or a woman, and many women choose not to enter this - and other careers - because of that.

Their reasons are their own, but if we have a totally equal playing field in terms of barriers (or lack of) to entry for both men and women then the choice is up to the individual, and shouldn't be forced by putting a quota system in place.

I agree with you that if there is a huge male-orientated thing in Irish politics which bars women from entry (or makes it considerably more difficult) then that should be stamped out. That's the middle ground, as I say - level the playing field, but don't arbitrarily stuff it with women either.

DadaKopf

Right, so you agree that gender discrimination in Ireland is a social, or cultural problem which we have to fix.

My question, therefore, is: how? How can it be fixed if, as you say, there are no 'technical' barriers to entry?

Vegeta

DadaKopf wrote:

Right, so you agree that gender discrimination in Ireland is a social, or cultural problem which we have to fix.

My question, therefore, is: how? How can it be fixed if, as you say, there are no 'technical' barriers to entry?

That's the 64 million dollar question isn't it.

DadaKopf

I don't think so. Massive expenditure on education and training, equality clauses to be ingrained in all government legislation not just services & employment, mainstream equality in school education, stronger anti-discrimination legislation and an adequately funded and staffed discrimination redress board.

We have these, but they're underfunded. Why?

Vegeta

Maybe they made little difference for the funds put in

It is very tough to change how people think, OF course you know this but it is indeed frustrating

I do think a forced 50/50 gender split is the wrong way to go though. I think this would make it worse. There would be a lot of "You only got your job because you're a woman"

Dontico

i would like to be house husband. that would be so cool.

to disolve the discrimination in politics issue, we should probably teach our children about gender equality in school. (which most schools do). we should then allow people to have access to as much info about the politics and the irish parties. lets say via books and the internet. then finally allow the public to decide who they want to vote, i.e. democracy.

if men still want to vote for men, and women only want to vote fr women. then then there will be a proportional amount of men and women in giv. if women prefer to vote for men. then more men will be in power; which is probably the case.

a reason why i probably be less likely to vote for a woman would be her high pitched voice. i dont like listening to loud high pitched people, thus i'm less likely to understand her view point if i dont want to listen to her. but i read the leaflets that come in my door.

metrovelvet

DadaKopf wrote:

Right, so you agree that gender discrimination in Ireland is a social, or cultural problem which we have to fix.

My question, therefore, is: how? How can it be fixed if, as you say, there are no 'technical' barriers to entry?

1. For starters it would help if the dominant image of womanhood werent a virgin holding a baby.

2. Stop school segregation

3. Promote sports and competetion among girls.

4. Evaluate as Declan Kiberd does in his remarkable book "Inventing Ireland" the relationship between masulinities, colony and the fear of feminisation, and the relationship between irish nationalism, "mother ireland" and the virgin mary image.

Thats what I can think of so far. Oh any maybe put some more female representations on onconnell street, its like a showcase to war as it stands, coupled with that spike, the only feminine representation on the city's main thoroughfare is Ann Summers.

John_C

Positive discrimination isn't always about the individual. An equally important question is wheather the standard of government will improve with more women involved. If it will, then it could be worth discriminating against others to get them there.

Dontico

John_C wrote:

Positive discrimination isn't always about the individual. An equally important question is wheather the standard of government will improve with more women involved. If it will, then it could be worth discriminating against others to get them there.

*claps for dictatorship*.

MontgomeryClift

How can you know if having as many women as men in parliament will make life better for the millions of women represented in that parliament? Is there a claim there that a man will represent his male/female constituency with a male bias? If so, won't a woman represent the same constituency with a female bias? Therefore every constituency is going to have an unfair representation, either female or male.

Judt

The way to change society once you have removed the barriers is for women to step up to the plate. Yes, let's have better education. Yes, let's ensure there's less Old Boys Clubs. But at the end of the day you are changing a mindset. The best way to do this is for skilled women to then enter the arena and do the big jobs, making it a perfectly normal situation.

You can't legislate for what people think, but over time you can change the way that they think. In the US, for example, black people still face many challenges in overcoming the repression of bygone eras. At the same time nobody now blinks at the prospect of black people running major companies, or the military, or being the foreign face of the country.

The same goes for women. Removing the barriers is the first step. The second one is for women to actually step onto the field and start playing. If you force women onto the field, with quotas and suchlike, then you cause more problems than you solve by causing a regressive movement against equality, seeing as it is actually inequal against another group (men.)

I think that "positive discrimination" is a way of explaining away discrimination against men the same way that men used to explain away discrimination against women with equally silly arguments.

fly_agaric

DadaKopf wrote:

It's the concepts about women in politics that act as barriers to women becoming TDs.

I don't think so. I think it's the nature of politics currently which causes the shortage of women rather than the voters' (the rest of society) or the female politicans' friends/family's negative perceptions of women who go into politics.

-Currently male-dominated
-Nastiness, massive pressure, necessity for a hide thicker than a rhino's
-Very Long hours (incl. the massive amounts of time spent persuading people to vote for you by pressing the flesh)

DadaKopf wrote:

I don't think so. Massive expenditure on education and training, equality clauses to be ingrained in all government legislation not just services & employment, mainstream equality in school education, stronger anti-discrimination legislation and an adequately funded and staffed discrimination redress board.

I thought you were speaking of politics + the lack of women in it specifically? Is all of the above really relevant to the pretty narrow topic of the culture associated with the job of professional vote-seeker in this country (and other ones too)?
As an aside, just how are women or girls discriminated against in "school education" in Ireland?LOL

EDIT: Forgive me. On rereading I see you mean that our whole "culture" is rotten and sexist and evil through-and-through (especially our schools and universities;)) + that naturally explains why there are few women in politics! Allrightey then.

MotgomeryClift wrote:

If so, won't a woman represent the same constituency with a female bias?

You see, when there are more women than men in parliaments the world over war will end, hunger and disease will disappear, crime and violence will be history and all will be right with the world! And of course gender discrimination will naturally end!:)

metrovelvet

Well, you have to wonder what the world would be like if 50% of the worlds talent hadnt been stuck in kitchens for centuries.

fly_agaric

metrovelvet wrote:

Well, you have to wonder what the world would be like if 50% of the worlds talent hadnt been stuck in kitchens for centuries.

We'd have destroyed the Earth by now so the question is somewhat moot...

You'll see. Hillary will start a nuclear píssing contest with the Chinese or the Arabs or something! (/jk):)

When there is no fancy modern technology to help out, alot of people must be stuck with doing drudge work in order to survive. Someone is going to be "in the kitchen" (bashing roots, grinding up corn on a quern or something, churning butter). Someone still is but it takes much less time and effort now.:) This "equality" stuff can't really be persued with out the miracles of modern science (electricity, motors, machines, etc etc etc, ....birth control).