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.
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments