Comments
Nokneemouse t1_itovxo6 wrote
Not really the case, we've got excellent politicians and absolute Muppets of both genders. There's not really any push to recruit one particular gender.
gammonbudju t1_itp9ore wrote
Isn't there a quota system at the party level? At least for the NZ Labour Party?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9357211/Labours-gender-quota-gets-go-ahead
I don't think u/Lordsevolox meant parliamentary gender quotas which would be insane.
LordSevolox t1_itpa27g wrote
The parties in the U.K. make all female short lists, basically saying only women can run in certain constituencies. Discriminatory, really. Pretty sure they also have all minority ones as well in Labour U.K.
Nokneemouse t1_itpak1n wrote
There is, but they were three percent behind their quota before they even enacted it.
Identity politics is kinda their thing though.
draxor_666 t1_itpnmp1 wrote
.....this literally is about enforcing a 50/50 split.
If 4 times as many men apply for the positions....but you enforce a 50/50 gender split....guess what that means?
The_Permanent_Way t1_itq4kl0 wrote
> .....this literally is about enforcing a 50/50 split.
Huh? NZ parliament has no such rule. Someone quit their job and because the next in line was a woman it happened to bring the numbers to 50/50.
eastandwestagain t1_itqhd4p wrote
you're more closely matching the demographics of those represented?
Kallasilya t1_itp1oem wrote
Meritocracies work great in a society free from prejudice. Alas, we don't live in one of those yet. Maybe one day...
LordSevolox t1_itp1s9m wrote
Meritocracy still works in a prejudiced society, just to a lesser extent. All that creating all-X short lists does is create more prejudice and likely promote the non-best candidate
Kallasilya t1_itp4ttn wrote
Actually there's pretty extensive evidence to suggest that encouraging diverse shortlists leads to better recruitment and also helps to reduce prejudice and encourage a broader pool of applicants in the future.
In a prejudiced society men already have an unfair advantage; there's effectively already a 'man quota' in many ways. And yet some men like to pretend that it is merely 'meritocracy' that's led to politicians, CEOs and other powerful figures being vastly more likely to be male.
Nah. That's the man quota.
BrockStar92 t1_itpz7qm wrote
Also people often have this notion about hiring as if it’s only about that filling that individual role and nothing else matters company wide. It’s not about hiring who is best at that one job, it’s about hiring who makes the company as a whole more money. And a diverse team of different ages, genders, races and backgrounds with a broader range of experiences will generally do better than a group of white men around the same age of the same sort of background. Factoring in the background and experiences of the person you’re hiring matters a lot, in the same way that you wouldn’t hire someone with no people skills that causes everyone else in the company to be miserable and drop their productivity just because they’re X amount better at their specific job than a different candidate.
Sweyn7 t1_itp52gq wrote
I'd probably be more in favor of encouraging diverse shortlists bringing people from different economic and cultural backgrounds rather than just looking for XY chromosomes and different skin colors, but that's just me. As long as it's not a congress managed by only white old farts, that's fine by me.
laukys t1_itpbw0c wrote
How does this privilege manifest at lower levels of society? Would you support 50:50 quotas for garbage men, plumbers, builders, mine shaft workers?
Kallasilya t1_itpdxv4 wrote
Absolutely, and also for nurses, carers and teachers. (Maybe if we recruited more men to these professions they wouldn't be so overworked and underpaid!)
laukys t1_itpemph wrote
So you want to force men into jobs they don't want to work and force women in jobs they don't want to work?
Kallasilya t1_itpf2pc wrote
I'd like us to get rid of dumb stereotypes that say men can't be 'nurturing' and women are too weak for hands-on work, yeah. Do you really think men and women choose different careers because of some innate god-given gender difference, or because thousands of years of societal/cultural pressures push us towards different things? I know which one I think is more likely...
RookieRemapped t1_itpjd2u wrote
Could be argued that thousands of years of societal, cultural and (I’m gonna add) environmental pressures have created an innate gender difference
laukys t1_itpj5b1 wrote
So let's take testosterone for example, it is a biological fact that the average man produces more testosterone than an average woman. Testosterone is linked with aggression. Would you rather leave your kids with someone who is more likely to be aggressive or someone who is more likely to be empathetic?
[deleted] t1_itpqwfi wrote
[removed]
Sabz5150 t1_itpo6jx wrote
>Would you rather leave your kids with someone who is more likely to be aggressive or someone who is more likely to be empathetic?
The one who wouldn't get away with it. Googles student rape cases
[deleted] t1_itu5dyn wrote
[deleted]
laukys t1_itvg3hl wrote
My other comment adds more context to this. But basically no, I was just trying to say that:
- Stereotypes are harmful because they pigeonholed people and attribute qualities to each individual, however they are also grounded on some level of truth, which provides some level of utility. Dismissing them is dismissing that element of truth. Be honest, if you had a small child and had to leave them with a random woman or a random man for a few hours, which would you be more comfortable with? Of course, if you had to leave them with someone you knew well(like your brother vs your sister) there would be almost no difference.
- Women and men (talking about group averages, not individuals), have different predispositions. In US 97.6% of preschool and kindergarten teachers are female. Why do you think that is?In my view, it's a combination three main factors: ability to do the job, finding the job fulfilling and discrimination. Even if we got forcibly get rid of discrimination by enforcing 50/50 quotas, why would we want to force people in roles that they would be worse at and find less fulfilling?
It does suck for the people who actually have the talent for jobs in fields where they face discrimination and we should always be looking for sensible ways to approach discrimination. I will note however that there is less discrimination now that in any moment in history, yet people still try to suggest the most radical of changes, which annoys and baffles me to no end.
[deleted] t1_itvx5kl wrote
[deleted]
Sabz5150 t1_itpny03 wrote
>there's effectively already a 'man quota' in many ways.
If a quota for one is okay, a quota for the other is as well. Otherwise what you want isnt equality. What you want is revenge.
Kallasilya t1_itprpac wrote
/blinks.
Yes, this is literally exactly what I'm saying? But you sound like you think you're having a 'gotcha' moment with me. I agree with you. Since everyone is okay with men unfairly obtaining positions, everyone should be okay with women 'unfairly' getting positions through quotas, too.
Otherwise it's not equality, as you say.
Sabz5150 t1_itpsfj8 wrote
Unfairly vs. 'Unfairly'
Your bias is showing. /blinks
Kallasilya t1_itpswdy wrote
Sorry, I'm genuinely confused. Could you please explain why accepting the same thing for both men and women (preferential treatment/quotas) is 'bias'? Because 'treating people equally' is the opposite of bias, by definition...
EDIT - sorry, I think I get what you mean now with unfairly vs 'unfairly'.
You're saying that it's fair for men to dominate in workplaces and politics, because 'meritocracy' - they're inherently better, at everything, on average, than women? Is that correct?
Sabz5150 t1_itpt4d5 wrote
Why is it unfair when its a man, but "unfair" when its a woman?
Kallasilya t1_itpw4ph wrote
Well, it's unfair for both, obviously. I used quotation marks for women in the sense that quotas are an established practice designed to address inequality, which can be interpreted as giving women an unfair advantage.
However, it's rare for people who consider quotas to be unfair who also recognise that men dominating all high-powered/high-paying roles is unfair, too. But that position is logically inconsistent. If getting a job based on your gender is bad, then getting a job based on your gender is bad, whether you're male or female. (The only way to 'logic' out of this position is the blind belief that men are in positions of power due to innate superiority - i.e. if you admit to being a straight-up old-fashioned sexist, which surely no thinking person would do).
As you said, literally the only way to make it 'fair', in theory, is to have 50/50 quotas for men and women for everything. But that's what gender quotas already are, and it sounds like you don't think they're a good idea! Hence my confusion.
(If women wanted revenge, the quotas would be to have 80-100% of all powerful roles filled exclusively by women for a couple of millenia or so. I don't see anyone proposing that particular strawman, however.)
Sabz5150 t1_itut94j wrote
>men dominating all high-powered/high-paying roles is unfair, too
As is men dominating the blue collar, labor intensive, often dangerous roles. But we don't hear about that for some odd reason.
Kallasilya t1_itx1o74 wrote
Yeah, because women LITERALLY weren't allowed to even apply for these roles until recently, and there's still massive sexism within a lot of manual labour industries. It's almost like (gasp) increased equality in the workplace could help to solve this issue too!
Sabz5150 t1_itx599l wrote
>Yeah, because women LITERALLY weren't allowed to even apply for these roles until recently
Women helped win WWII in such jobs. Turns out they are fantastic welders.
>and there's still massive sexism within a lot of manual labour industries
Blue collar manual worker here. No. The women that do work here would not tolerate it. That stereotype is breathing its last breath thankfully.
> It's almost like (gasp) increased equality in the workplace could help to solve this issue too!
Its about making the proverbial horse drink, there is water all around. Its not all that high paying, not clean at all, and in rather undesirable temperatures at times. Not exactly what you described as the jobs that women are gunning for. Is there a drive to get women into blue collar like there is with STEM?
Kallasilya t1_itzbet5 wrote
Despite (I assume, forgive me if incorrect) not being a woman and (from what I can see) not being active in any feminist subs or spaces, you apparently think you already know all the answers to the issues of workplace gender politics. I don't really have any more energy in trying to discuss this with you as it seems you're not interested in considering other viewpoints. Cheers.
Sabz5150 t1_itznec4 wrote
>you apparently think you already know all the answers to the issues of workplace gender politics.
Well they teach us this in the industry: if you have to force it, you are doing something wrong.
Kallasilya t1_itzot24 wrote
Ah yes, as we know, all social change has been brought about by groups of people quietly sitting back and doing nothing.
;)
Sabz5150 t1_itzpc87 wrote
Its also never been rammed down one's throat. That's what the Right does.I am not saying change should not happen, but it should not be forced with quotas and the like.
Kallasilya t1_itzqg0h wrote
Okay I said I'd let this drop but I can't let that take stand... Women got the vote by going on hunger strike, smashing windows, and setting shit on fire! Societal change (not just for women but for all groups) has always been 'forced'. It's the only thing that's ever worked.
And the people in power have never, ever liked it either. But give it a few decades and hopefully all of these measures will be in the past.
hellraisinhardass t1_itp8zq9 wrote
Bullshit. Everyone hates 'tokens', it's painfully obvious when a person didn't get hired based on merit- this makes co-workers dislike them because they're stuck working with an incompetent person, it makes underlings hate them because they know they're more qualified and most importantly it makes qualified people from that privileged group hate them because it damages their group images by being associated with incompetence.
Kallasilya t1_itpagz5 wrote
But men don't get hired purely based on merit.
That's my point.
(Unless you think the majority of powerful positions occupied by men up til now were based 100% on merit, and women are just inherently inferior? I doubt anyone would admit to genuinely believing that these days though, surely...)
There has always been an invisible quota for men.
Why is a male quota acceptable but a female quota isn't?
Why should you expect people to hate incompetent women who've been placed in a role due to a quota, more than incompetent men who are placed in a role due to their privilege? Neither option is great, obviously! But why should one be worse than the other?
(For the record I am playing devil's advocate somewhat - I do think that quotas are blunt instruments at best, I think they should be used to ensure a diverse shortlist of qualified candidates rather than directly applied, and I hope that in a few decades or so we'll no longer need them.)
anto2554 t1_itpf9te wrote
>Why is a male quota acceptable but a female quota isn't?
Because one might be based on men getting more votes from men, and men liking men more, (?) or on men statistically pursuing something harder for various reasons.
The other is a blatant "you may not do this because of your gender" in black and white
Kallasilya t1_itpfkms wrote
The word 'might' is doing a heck of a lot of hard work in that sentence there, lol.
anto2554 t1_itphthv wrote
Okay, so am I understanding correctly that this is your opinion?:
Men vote more for men, because they're men, and women vote entirely based on merit
laukys t1_itpbcz2 wrote
I think you overestimate how much privilege matters. If person A can do the same job at half the cost that person B can, in a capitalist society person A will get hired significantly more often.
Kallasilya t1_itpbl4d wrote
Oh okay, so you're going with the "men are in vastly more positions of power because they're just inherently superior" angle?
Righto then. That's certainly... a take.
laukys t1_itpe5z1 wrote
No, I think it's more complicated than that. Sociological forces exist, but so do other factors. There is the greater male variability hypothesis for example. There is also evidence to suggest that in general women tend to gravitate to jobs that deal with people and men gravitate towards jobs that deal with things. There is also the gender equality paradox - as countries become more egalitarian (like Scandinavian European countries for example), the gender gap actually increases.
I am not saying any group is better than any other group, and I am not trying to pigeonhold anyone either - the in group variance is actually higher than the variance between groups, so there are women qualified for any position. Equality of opportunity should be one of the main goals of our society, however expecting an even 50/50 split in anything is ridiculous.
MaikuTachibana t1_itoxkcp wrote
In a completely equal and meritocratic society, for sure, but we don't live in either so we use affirmative action to combat it. By all definitions it's discriminatory but I'd argue it's a necessary evil, once we've dispelled the myth about women in the workplace being someway inferior to men based on nothing but their sexual organs or gender, there will be no more need for quotas and affirmative action, but until then it's necessary to manually match the numbers because if we didn't then they'd forever be skewed
Honestly the best way to dispel prejudice is exposure and normality, so it's 100% necessary for now to have affirmative action
As a side note, if you personally believe that meritocracy exists in the UK/NZ then I suppose my argument doesn't hold much weight but I honestly believe that it doesn't for a multitude of reasons which I'd be happy to elaborate on if you're interested to hear my thoughts
sfurbo t1_itpi3h3 wrote
> By all definitions it's discriminatory but I'd argue it's a necessary evil, once we've dispelled the myth about women in the workplace being someway inferior to men based on nothing but their sexual organs or gender, there will be no more need for quotas and affirmative action, but until then it's necessary to manually match the numbers because if we didn't then they'd forever be skewed > > Honestly the best way to dispel prejudice is exposure and normality, so it's 100% necessary for now to have affirmative action
That only works if the quotas are applied on the level where the prejudice works. If there are fewer women in a particular role because prejudice keeps women from getting the qualifications for that role, quotas will ensure that the women who get the role will, on average, be less competent than the men - simply because selecting the same number from a smaller pool necessitates selecting less competent people. This will only reinforce the prejudice.
So careful analysis of the cause of the skewedness is needed before quotas are a good idea.
I don't know whether they have done that analysis here, so this isn't directly a criticism of this policy, but it seems like the necessary analysis is rarely done before quotas are enacted.
anto2554 t1_itpfbt5 wrote
Do you also want race quotas or only gender quotas?
purple-lemons t1_itpctot wrote
Well surely in a meritocracy you would expect a roughly even distribution between men and women, since they're fundamentally equally capable. If there is a large disparity between the sexes it would signal that perhaps the system is unmeritocratic.
gotagetback2hogwarts t1_itpjyyx wrote
I like that everyone keeps reasonably replying to these people explaining discrimination and giving them the benefit of the doubt, even though in their responses it's pretty clear they believe white men run things because they're superior, AKA "just better suited and naturally more interested in these roles."
purple-lemons t1_itpkaqc wrote
Exactly, you can say it as subtly and with as much sterility as possible, but ultimately falsly asserting that white men are just best suited to government is part of the deeply entrenched sexist and white supremicist nature of our society.
SacredEmuNZ t1_itpwg2b wrote
On the flip side it's hilarious when you get a minority or woman leader and all of a sudden it's "yes, but not that person". Today in the UK was a good example of this.
BrockStar92 t1_itpzfv0 wrote
I don’t really see it as hilarious. Frankly the flood of posts and comments going “see what happens when you let a woman lead” is pretty fucking depressing to me. The problem with Truss isn’t her gender it’s that she’s a fucking Tory and a fucking idiot.
SacredEmuNZ t1_itpzlek wrote
Oh right so it can be a women but it has to be the right team, got it.
BrockStar92 t1_itq1ji0 wrote
Nobody on the left was saying Truss shouldn’t get the job because of her gender. They were saying she shouldn’t get the job because she was a disaster about to fuck the economy. Which she did.
And it’s breathtaking irony from you in playing identity politics against the left when the reason the conservative members voted for Truss over Sunak was largely his skin colour…
SacredEmuNZ t1_itq1xj3 wrote
Lmao and if he beat her you'd have said they'd rather a man than a woman. Comedy gold.
BrockStar92 t1_itq50m2 wrote
Well no, because there wasn’t any evidence of that. Where there was lots of public evidence of conservative members rejecting Sunak for not being British enough. There was a caller into LBC the other day trying to argue that Sunak (born in England) was less English than Boris Johnson (born in USA) for example.
SacredEmuNZ t1_itq61tr wrote
Well he has more Anglo Saxon blood. I'm more ethnically "English" and I haven't even been there. I could be born in India that doesn't make me Indian.
BrockStar92 t1_itq73tx wrote
If Anglo Saxon blood defines English then the Welsh are more English than the English, who are more French.
And yes if you were born in India and have an Indian passport then you are Indian. The UK has a large population of south Asian heritage and those people are just as British as everyone else. Claiming anything otherwise is outright racism.
SacredEmuNZ t1_its1xtr wrote
I think drawing lines on country of birth and passports is too strict. I live in Australia and will soon get an Australian passport. I have a brother who was born in Australia yet he's lived in NZ all his life. It's just an arrangement of convenience that works for me, I will never be an Australian though. I think self determination has alot more to do with it.
[deleted] t1_itq7l1a wrote
[removed]
alexius339 t1_itpkb04 wrote
what a stretch lmao
LordSevolox t1_itperkr wrote
Under a meritocracy you wouldn’t see an even split. Different people are into different things and go into different areas. In a meritocracy you’d see the best people to do the job get it, so it’s very possible to have a crazy skew in the numbers of men to women or whites to blacks or whatever, all comes down to who’s best for the role and whose applying. It’s not a problem, just like it’s not a problem that women are the majority in some roles and men are the majority in others. Men are less likely to want to be nurses or look after children, whilst women are less likely to want to work on an oil rig or be a mechanic. It’s just down to what the sexes prefer, partially do a biological level (women being naturally more caring and child focused whilst men are more proactive and stronger).
purple-lemons t1_itpr6mq wrote
Many of the differences between men and womens preference in work can be explained by cultural expectations. That women are pressed into more caring societal roles, where men are often pushed the opposite way. That's not to say that are no inherent differences between men and women, on average men are stronger and as you say are therefor better suited to work on an oil rig, and an inate maternal sense may well make a woman more suited for nursing. However it's hard to pull these appart from entrenched cultural influences, which may seem natural, but at least to some degree are artificial and further move us from meritocracy.
But as for politics, this is a personable and cerebral field, traits upon which race and sex have, as far as we currently understand, no bearing. There isn't any inherent reason that a white man would be better at this than anyone else, and yet the majority of western politicians are white men. This is because of the historical inequality between men and women, and between different races, it is the clearest and most salient explanation for the phonomenon.
Also side note "white" and "black" are not races, there are innumerable races within these broad categorisations with different genetic traits. I find it unlikely on the face of it that there would genetic signals that link skin pigmant with cognitive ability or temprement, certainly not in a way that would affect ones suitability for different proffesions.
BrockStar92 t1_itq02an wrote
What’s more, in politics you’re supposed to be representing the population and addressing their issues. It’s an area where diversity for diversity’s sake actually does matter - it is harder for people who have not experienced issues to fully understand them and what’s needed. The fact that elected representatives tend to be older, mostly male, mostly from well off backgrounds, mostly white etc in many countries is why policies tend to suit those demographics more than others, and why legislation on issues such as revenge porn (being technological and affecting mostly young women) tends to take a long time to be realised.
LordSevolox t1_itpt3xe wrote
Well as you said yourself, these are cultural influences that come nature. Women have a lot of their roles in society due to genetics and so do men. It’s why a lot of societal norms are the same across the world. There’s of course certain cultural aspects which influence where people work that aren’t from that.
The majority of politicians in the western world are men for two main reasons. The first being the majority of the population being white. The second being a lot of politicians have been in their jobs for a long long time, people often re-elect the same person in their area again (in the U.K. we call these safe seats), allowing for those who were in politics 40 years ago when the social landscape was different to still be a large amount of the government. Despite this, the cabinet under the previous prime minister in the U.K. had 0 white men in it.
White and black are races in the way we use it to refer to humans, it’s easier than saying “Anglo-Saxon” or “Ethiopian”. Anyway, the races don’t have any notable mental or physical capabilities that are different due to race, but there are those due to socio economic reasons, but that’s a different kettle of fish that I’d rather not go into as I’d be here all day. The only reason I brought up race is it’s a area you see affirmative action get put in place for, which especially in the case of university and college admission has been proven to not just be discriminatory but also negative towards those that get in. This video explains it bette than I can.
The_Last_Green_leaf t1_itptmru wrote
>That women are pressed into more caring societal roles, where men are often pushed the opposite way.
except the differences between men and women get bigger the more society is gender equal, societies where men and women work the longest and together tend to be poorer and often worse for women's rights,
this is because men and women are fundamentally different and have different goals in life and in their careers, when women are completely free to go for any job they still have preference.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-times-are-good-the-gender-gap-grows/
https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-women-equality-preferences-20181018-story.html
rrainraingoawayy t1_itrnhcu wrote
I suppose you think men are just more likely to want to be prime minister, too 🙄
LordSevolox t1_itrntty wrote
Men are more likely to pursue politics, but anyone who’s in politics I’d imagine aims for the premiership, whether male or female.
rrainraingoawayy t1_itt1jdj wrote
Do you think there are any societal factors influencing the numbers of men and women pursuing politics?
2HGjudge t1_itp7b56 wrote
Look up the Scully effect. As others have said it's a temporary necessary evil, it's simply an effective way to get to that good meritocracy.
LordSevolox t1_itpb5t4 wrote
The scully effect has nothing to do with discrimination in favour of women. It has to do with a female role model, which have existed in politics for longer than short lists have.
resumethrowaway222 t1_itpetps wrote
Yeah, that's why they are trying to get rid of advanced math classes in CA and getting sued in the Supreme Court for blatantly discriminating against Asians. Meritocracy!
grazerbat t1_itotu7k wrote
Well said.
I'd add, remove the barriers to entry and let people organically choose their career path.
killcat t1_itrp895 wrote
This is a LIST seat, the party has absolute control of it, it's for an existing Labor seat, no one voted for her, it's absolutely for the optics.
The_Permanent_Way t1_itscuf8 wrote
They have no control over the list once the election is done. It’s not like they got to handpick her to replace this retiring MP two years down the line.
girls_die_pretty t1_itpxwwe wrote
We don't have female only short lists.
Shamefully it says a lot about other countries attitudes that people are assuming it's the case, or that there is some kind of quota here.
Some parties do obviously have diversity targets within the party lists, but there are no seats "only women" can run in.
AnimusCorpus t1_its7vbr wrote
> Meritocracy
That word doesn't mean what you think it means. Meritocracy isn't a good thing, it was coined in a book of the same title that described how the UK education system was widening the class divide by allocating majority of it's resources to those who already had a head start.
Meritocracy is a BAD thing.
DomesticApe23 t1_itoilqt wrote
>On 12 June 2002 it will be a hundred years since Australia became the first country in the world to give most women the right to vote and the right to stand for the Commonwealth Parliament. New Zealand was the first nation to give women the right to vote, but not to stand, in 1893.
Edit: Every single moron in this thread who assumes this is because of 'quotas' or affirmative action is openly displaying their bitterness towards women.
All the women were elected. What else do you think could possibly be occurring. How fucking stupid do you have to be?
musicCaster t1_itrpxj9 wrote
I had to read the article as I was curious if this was a natural thing it because of quotas. Looks like it was a natural thing. Congratulations NZ.
DeTrotseTuinkabouter t1_its697a wrote
There is at least one party in the Netherlands who had as a rule that their candidates have to be 50% women. Hence, more women enter parliament as a result of people voting for that party (note: the party. Not per se on those women).
Is that not some form of affirmative action?
[deleted] t1_itp2bf0 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_itp2e9m wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_itpevm4 wrote
[removed]
cnzmur t1_itutczw wrote
> All the women were elected
NZ has an MMP system, many of them were list candidates who were selected by their parties, not voted on directly.
[deleted] t1_itrocmt wrote
[deleted]
DomesticApe23 t1_itromhu wrote
Or? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Or did you just begin with the assumption that it isn't possible for 50% of an elected government to be female?
You guys don't seem to realise how telling this is of your prejudices.
[deleted] t1_itrw30e wrote
[removed]
Phantom-Z t1_itrzfqg wrote
>Is it not a problem that the woman have a smaller brain than a man? The government scientist Dr Yamuka has proved it is size of squirrel.
Hahah between the broken English and the blatant prejudice this comment is both incredibly funny and sad
DomesticApe23 t1_itsyexa wrote
It's from Borat.
TesLake t1_itrhqvk wrote
You are right, I was so stupid for believing a forced gender split in a political position has nothing to do with quotas or justice. Thanks for opening my eyes man
AnimusCorpus t1_its7ej9 wrote
I live in NZ, it's not forced. MPs are all made up of directly elected positions.
I'm sorry it's inconceivable to you that we vote for women sometimes, but that's a you problem.
cnzmur t1_itutnd9 wrote
No, MPs in NZ aren't all directly elected. The 72 electorate ones are, the list ones are selected by the parties and then we vote for parties not the MPs directly.
[deleted] t1_itrivpt wrote
[removed]
blue_field_pajarito t1_itod6u1 wrote
Really fucking depressing that this is such a big deal. Ugh.
ebagdrofk t1_itqmcst wrote
How tf is this depressing??
Boethiah18 t1_itp2vwq wrote
Depression yes, unreasonable that it's like that? No
FabianVG t1_itomx6v wrote
It's not a big deal though.
blue_field_pajarito t1_itopl3f wrote
Are you a man?
faciepalm t1_itp67m8 wrote
Maybe he means that it shouldn't be a big deal, it should just be normal. Or he could just be saying he doesn't believe women face any hardships in life due to being women and that this is nothing special. hm...
grazerbat t1_itoh91z wrote
I'm happy about it...because when we achieve parity, people can stop talking about it.
I'm so done with identity politics
dragonsmilk t1_itoii4d wrote
Parity across an infinite number of arbitrary groups is impossible.
grazerbat t1_itoinor wrote
This is true.
It's also true that intersectionalism is cancer.
hairynostrils t1_itombq3 wrote
I wonder if women in New Zealand have to sign up for their version of the military draft when they become voting age. How does that work in New Zealand since everyone is equal there? - Serious question. Do they have something like that like Israel? I know in America it is only men that are legally obligated to register for the draft at 18yo
Thorned_Rose t1_itotyh5 wrote
There is no draft in Aotearoa New Zealand. Joining a NZ military service is voluntary and the only requirements are that you are 18, be medically and physically fit and be a citizen or permanent/indefinite resident.
(Source: I live in NZ)
grazerbat t1_itonld6 wrote
Good question. I can tell younthstnin Canada, there's no draft registration.
It's pretty fucked up that they only register men in the US.
It's also fucked up that all the employment equity programs here are funneling women to STEM (there's a very little for the trades), but all the "dirty" jobs are ignored. We need more men teaching in primary school, and more women driving garbage trucks.
BrockStar92 t1_itq0g1m wrote
I always wonder why people complaining about discrimination against men always bring up the draft, as if the obvious solution isn’t just “get rid of it, it’s archaic and ridiculous” rather than “yeah send women to war too!!”
hairynostrils t1_itq3zn8 wrote
When there is no war there will be no draft. Until then, women should see that equality is about equal responsibilities as well as equal freedom. Otherwise men are just some sort of slave caste who catch bullets so you can enjoy your Caramel Macchiato
BrockStar92 t1_itq54ey wrote
There’s war now. There’s no draft in many countries.
hairynostrils t1_itqaoab wrote
This is a child’s understanding of rights and responsibilities
BrockStar92 t1_itqfirh wrote
What’s childish? The draft does not exist in many countries, including my own. The idea of the draft is a nonsense that doesn’t understand that training and equipment matters far more than number of bodies. An untrained masse is no more an army than a heap of building materials is a house. How does any of this relate to rights and responsibilities?
hairynostrils t1_itqhwwj wrote
As a man in society you are always tasked with providing and protecting. Those are responsibilities. It concerns me that women don’t seem to have the same feelings about their responsibilities to protect their fellow man. So parity or equality should also spread out the responsibility to protect as well as provide. It is a child’s understanding to think a grown ass adult isn’t responsible for that aspect of citizenship.
BrockStar92 t1_itqjtdk wrote
>As a man in society you are always tasked with providing and protecting.
This is patriarchal nonsense. You are working from a sexist premise. Men are not required to provide and protect except by sexists. Men and women do not have different rights and responsibilities.
Also being against the draft as a concept does not mean a child’s understanding of the duties of citizens to the society in which they live. If citizens feel they have a genuine responsibility to defend their nation from attack then they will volunteer and a draft is irrelevant. Forced service is not “an individual’s responsibility”.
[deleted] t1_itqkvo4 wrote
[removed]
hairynostrils t1_itqr0sd wrote
You are only considering a reality that doesn’t include You being responsible for providing protection for the citizens of your state- that responsibility is obviously irrelevant in this modern day and age and we have all evolved beyond that - I guess that is easy to think if you aren’t personally on the line to catch a bullet or even more obtuse that a whole gender doesn’t have to deal with that reality at all.
Which is why I always wonder if all these women in leadership positions think like you- and that is very dangerous for young men. Young men are not meat for your protection
blue_field_pajarito t1_itopp45 wrote
Are you a man?
grazerbat t1_itosb53 wrote
I am a meat popsicle
Dirk_94 t1_itp3j00 wrote
I would like a System where Leaders are democratically elected and not put into a Position of Power because of their gender.
girls_die_pretty t1_itpy7ns wrote
This is literally what has happened? Is it that unbelievable 50% of Parliament is female based on merit??
cnnrduncan t1_itpq4qt wrote
3/4 of the democratically elected PMs during my lifetime have been women.
SilverNicktail t1_itrxzhb wrote
How do you think MPs get into office, exactly?
Onegreenmartian t1_itpfua0 wrote
Except in scenarios where men have dominated seats unfairly for years just becaus they are men. You have to bring balance to the System you speak of.
Dirk_94 t1_itpksxb wrote
Thats true, but not a Balance of outcome
If every woman has a fair Chance to be elected i Support it.
If the outcome (50 % have to be women) i dont Support it. It doesnt solve anything realy, exept undermine the Basis of...well somebody getting elected.
duffman7050 t1_itpht5v wrote
Why must everything be 50%? In a large survey, most women preferred a male boss, so perhaps women are driving the imbalance out of their personal preferences.
gregorydgraham t1_itpj9nv wrote
Women can also be misogynists, its true
duffman7050 t1_itpkrns wrote
Is that what personal preference is called nowadays? When men go see a urologist and prefer a male urologist during revealing examinations, that preference is sexist but they're entitled to a preference and there's nothing wrong with that. Many women (my wife included) prefer male friends to female friends because they often express how exasperated they are with the drama and gossiping that often accompanies having female friends. There's nothing wrong with having preferences.
malaproperism t1_itpyx7w wrote
When you consistently experience drama with a specific group of people, it's time to consider whether you're the common denominator.
duffman7050 t1_itq0lnn wrote
I'll let my wife know her choices in friends is not considered suitable to the notoriously socially anxious/ antiwork redditor types.
[deleted] t1_itq0rxi wrote
[removed]
Onegreenmartian t1_itpr5k1 wrote
Large survey? Lol
duffman7050 t1_itpwec2 wrote
Yes, Google it. Don't be an asshole.
[deleted] t1_itry3kl wrote
[removed]
SwineFlu2020 t1_itp692o wrote
Isn't being given a role (whether government or private sector) based on a person's gender the literal definition of sexism?
Dirk_94 t1_itp7xx3 wrote
Apparently beeing against Sexism gets you a lot of downvotes in /upliftingnews ...
[deleted] t1_itp8od1 wrote
[deleted]
Dirk_94 t1_itp8y87 wrote
What am i implying?
BrockStar92 t1_itq0v6e wrote
That this was forced diversity rather than just having elected even numbers of men and women. There’s no quota or agenda, this is just individual parliamentary elections leading to a 50/50 ratio.
Dirk_94 t1_itq14o9 wrote
Well it is? Most likely as a woman you wont have the largest share of the votes yet still you get awarded a seat because you are on the womens voting list.
[deleted] t1_itq6152 wrote
[deleted]
DomesticApe23 t1_itq79to wrote
Lol wtf
plssirnomore t1_itp1mdw wrote
Nice dude. Will she act differently to any other politician? If not who cares.
ebagdrofk t1_itqmgzs wrote
These comments suck ass.
Akerno t1_itp7no8 wrote
How about choosing people based on competence?
disasteratsea t1_itplchz wrote
Why are you assuming they didn't
Akerno t1_itqktij wrote
Because they are obviously prioritizing having a 50/50 equal number instead of choosing people based on their competence and merit regardless of gender.
disasteratsea t1_itqt8g8 wrote
So, if they were selecting based on "competence and merit" here, they should have selected a man instead? What an interesting take sir
Akerno t1_itqxj9p wrote
Please don’t misunderstand me, I clearly said regardless of gender, I do not care if it’s a man or a woman, could be even more women than men as long as its based on merit and competence.
disasteratsea t1_itr30tl wrote
And yet, you've assumed they haven't been selecting based on merit and competence, based on what, the 50/50 split, which isn't even mandated at a parliamentary level and depends on the internal makeups and policies of many parties. To get to more women than men they'd still need to pass through 50/50, this is just an article about that milestone
Akerno t1_its5ia9 wrote
Can we just be honest for a moment? it’s clear that the main focus is achieving equality by going 50/50 because if it was based on competence and merit, there wouldn’t be an equal number, what would be the odds?
disasteratsea t1_itscseh wrote
The thing about counting is that after 49, comes 50. Once we hit that milestone, there was always gonna be an article written. Man left, happened to be a woman that entered parliament. That's it. That's all this is. But you seem to really want to believe this isn't based on merit for some reason. It's not a main focus, parliament demographics consist of many different parties, and an even gender split isn't mandated in parliament at large, it just happened here. What would be the odds? Well, it's actually 60 women to 59 men if that helps
Edit: your assertion doesn't even make sense based on how our electoral system works, the parties just aren't in kahoots to get any sort of even gender split in parliament, it's not even really possible as there's no way of knowing ahead of time where the votes would land. Our second-largest party is only like 30% women and are set for a big win next election, so you can sleep easy knowing the pendulum will swing back the other way very soon
_Turbulent_Juice_ t1_ituwruv wrote
No politician is chosen on competence.
Deadliestmoon t1_itq5h7g wrote
That's nice.
eastandwestagain t1_itqh3dz wrote
I wonder how much better governed the US would be if our representatives more closely matched our demographics.
[deleted] t1_itu4b6h wrote
[deleted]
AutoModerator t1_ito55ms wrote
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_itq80dc wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_ittm7l8 wrote
[deleted]
MediumStake t1_itpgpyx wrote
SacredEmuNZ t1_itpxd8g wrote
"We have to remember that us having equal numbers in Parliament does not necessarily translate to all women in New Zealand having a fair go."
Uhhhh...then do your job properly?
[deleted] t1_itq0c3l wrote
[removed]
Vast-Cicada-2662 t1_itqvm6j wrote
how does one get puts on NZ?
Thames_CDN t1_its70sg wrote
Great, let's do minorities next . I'll wait ...
SpankyMcGrits t1_itpjxgh wrote
What will have equal share of seats in Parliament? I don't understand...
Onegreenmartian t1_itpfzay wrote
Good, now do this worldwide please.
EsdrasCaleb t1_itpjicr wrote
Change the election to sortition and this will be 100% guaranteed
FightTheOcean t1_itpyszx wrote
Equality of outcome is a despicable doctrine. Equality of opportunity is a much better/effective path. Promote your leaders based on competence, not gender/age/race.
finndego t1_itrzs6p wrote
Their is no obligation of gender equality. No one is saying she got in just to make a 50/50 split.
_Turbulent_Juice_ t1_ituwfgl wrote
How do you think elections work?
FightTheOcean t1_itzqtql wrote
If the goal is to have 50% of the seats occupied by women, that is equality of outcome
No-Reveal8042 t1_itp8m4d wrote
A shame that that seems to be more important and newsworthy than whether they're qualified or not.
_Turbulent_Juice_ t1_ituw83w wrote
Probably because it is the only interesting thing about her being elected. "Huh look at that 50/50, guess that will do."
skexzies t1_itq1fv3 wrote
Exactly the problem when you are pushing a liberal social agenda rather than qualifications.
Raptorman_Mayho t1_itpbay6 wrote
The world is watching 🙂
TesLake t1_itrge5q wrote
So what happens if there are 10 seats, 6 really competitive men, 4 really competetive women and 1 uncompetitive woman? They just give the seat to the uncompetitive woman?
finndego t1_itrz04c wrote
That's not how it works. There is no obligation to have a 50/50 gender split.
NobleArch t1_itp5slv wrote
Maybe one day they would have 100% female. Intrigued what would happen especially in other countries.
cuckboysquarenuts t1_itq0v0t wrote
horrible news, people shouldnt be elected to congress based on their sex, it should be based on their merit and democracy
[deleted] t1_itrd958 wrote
[removed]
finndego t1_itrziko wrote
No one has been elected based on sex and their is no obligation to have a gender balance in Parliament. It is just happenstance.
Glloomm t1_ittlk0i wrote
Why are you assuming they aren't elected? Because they're women? There's no gender requirement?
fishtheheretic t1_itphrpz wrote
How about other seats like the drivers seat in a truck? Ladies are you excited about 12 hour shifts on the road keeping the country going? Or just high paying comfy seats in parliament? Equality is important but only when it’s comfortable and lucrative.
jizzm_wasted t1_itpit0p wrote
I bet they aren't discussing abortion rights.
Edit: interesting downvote. What I am saying is that since there are so many woman politicians, women's rights won't be repressed by the usual male politician majority.
gregorydgraham t1_itpje1f wrote
Abortion is legal in New Zealand, same as any other life saving medical procedure
Kratos1902 t1_itpvsn5 wrote
Is it legal to abort just because women don’t want to be mothers?
gregorydgraham t1_itq2zcx wrote
Yes. It’s nothing to do with you, just the woman and her doctor.
Nothing you ever do in your life will be as dangerous as pregnancy. It should never be undertaken glibly.
Kratos1902 t1_itq34i6 wrote
It happens. Sadly.
gregorydgraham t1_itrmteh wrote
From personal experience, it’s nothing to do with you
Kratos1902 t1_itrmxyy wrote
I disagree.
gregorydgraham t1_itrn8ch wrote
You’re wrong
Kratos1902 t1_itrnioa wrote
I won’t entertain your comments led by emotions. My question was already answered.
BrockStar92 t1_itq11lg wrote
You do not need to provide a reason for aborting in many countries where abortion is legal.
Kratos1902 t1_itq352m wrote
Alright.
cnnrduncan t1_itppzwe wrote
NZ only fully legalised abortion back in like 2019, I doubt any party is gonna try to make it illegal again so soon.
Timmyval123 t1_itosy6j wrote
I'm sorry. What ?
Dubcekification t1_itpw9qk wrote
Sure, fine. And when the people who were just given a position rather than earning it show just as little competence as everyone else maybe we can get back to looking for the best people for the job regardless of what they have between their legs.
CthuluTheGrand t1_itpkzxb wrote
So... It's 2022. We have quite a few genders now. Will they not be part of this forced representation? Seem awfully discriminatory to only allow 50/50 men/women
torikura t1_itq6l8h wrote
There is no gender quota, the post is merely pointing out how far we have progressed in NZ that women have equal representation. It's evidence of our democratic system working because we elected them irregardless of their gender.
girls_die_pretty t1_itpyge0 wrote
Why is it forced? All these people have been democratically elected
foukehi t1_itpznix wrote
It's forced in the sense that it's not purely based on merit, but also on gender. Which is dumb. Following your logic, even if they impose 100% men, they would still be democratically elected. Does that make it not discriminatory?
girls_die_pretty t1_itq04lt wrote
Sorry, are you under the impression that there are women only electorates or something? This is just part of a steady increase since the 70s.
cuckboysquarenuts t1_itq3q1t wrote
no, that wasnt his point, lets say 450 women apply and 280 men apply, better qualified women would be displaced because of the 50/50 quotas and viceversa with the genders reversed therefore lowering the quality of the candidates.
girls_die_pretty t1_itq430n wrote
What quotas are you referring to that are supposedly in play in this instance? Our Parliament doesn't have a gender quota
cuckboysquarenuts t1_itq4gcb wrote
i mean, the quota in the article. or did i missread it and it only happens that they hit a perfect 50/50 split? if so i think its amazing news but the title is poorly phrased.
girls_die_pretty t1_itq5ylf wrote
You're going to have to quote it directly because there is literally no quota mentioned in the article. It literally just says it's hit a 50/50 split based on MPs being elected in, there is no quota system in place saying it had to be so.
To spell it out, a quota would be if there was a law saying 50% of Parliament must be female. There is no such thing.
The most recent woman has been sworn is after a male candidate resigned, and she won the by-election for the seat he left vacant.
There are no seats only women are allowed to run in. They all got in on merit.
Parliament is 50/50 male and female. Both genders ran and this was the fully democratic result.
3 of our last 4 Prime Ministers have been women, and our current Deputy PM is gay. Still no quota there either.
foukehi t1_itrb7yy wrote
My bad then. I also misunderstood the title. I thought this was about quotas being in place. If it just randomly happens that they hit 50 50 then nothing is wrong with it obviously. On the other hand, and while i understand some people's need to celebrate such an event, i personally believe that real equality means not caring what people do with their lives, or in this instance, whether we achieve a 50/50 split at a given job or position.
DomesticApe23 t1_itrjjrw wrote
And yet here you are caring incorrectly all over the place. Also known as 'letting your dick hang out'.
[deleted] t1_its4i2v wrote
[removed]
finndego t1_its0ec2 wrote
This isnt forced representaion. It's happenstance.
New Zealand has already had the world's 1st transgender Mayor and MP when Georgina Beyer got elected. She was very competent in both roles especially being the Mayor in the rural area of Wairarapa.
WikiSummarizerBot t1_its0g12 wrote
[Georgina Beyer](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgina_Beyer#:~:text=She surprised political commentators to,re-contested Wairarapa for Labour)
>Georgina Beyer (born November 1957) is a New Zealand politician and former Labour Party Member of Parliament. In 1995 she was elected mayor of Carterton, making her the world's first openly transgender mayor. In 2005 she became the world's first openly transgender Member of Parliament. She is also among a very small number of former sex workers to hold political office.
^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
LordSevolox t1_itotax8 wrote
Doesn’t matter if it’s 100% male or 100% female as long as they’re democratically elected and are good at their job.
Not sure what it’s like in NZ, but in the U.K. a lot of female MPs are likely only there due to female only short lists, which I think is a terrible thing to have. Meritocracy is what’s important, if I became an MP just because of a characteristic and not my beliefs or merits then I’d be unhappy about it.