LordSevolox t1_itperkr wrote
Reply to comment by purple-lemons in Women will have equal share of seats in [New Zealand] Parliament with Soraya Peke-Mason's swearing-in by giblefog
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?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments