Gender quotas and other other positive discriminations

oscarBravo

emmet02 wrote: »

It hasn't happened yet as far as I can see.

What date do you expect it to happen?

I don't, in the absence of whatever societal changes are required to facilitate it.

You inadvertently made my point for me: women were allowed to vote in Ireland in 1918, and two years short of a century later, fewer than a quarter of Dáil seats are filled by women - a percentage that puts us on par with the UAE, and behind Iraq and Afghanistan.

The argument goes that since there is no legal bar on women standing for election, nor on other women voting for them, there's no problem: everything's hunky dory, and if a woman is the right person for the job, she'll be elected. Which leads to the dichotomy you rejected out of hand: either there are half as many women sufficiently capable of being elected representatives as there are men; or there are other issues at play.

I don't like the idea of gender quotas, for the reasons you've outlined. But I also don't like systemic (as opposed to legislative) discrimination, and, since I reject the idea that women are inherently less capable of running the country than men, it is evident that there are systemic barriers that need to be dismantled.

Gender quotas are a means to that end. They are not an end in themselves. They are a way of saying to political parties: fix whatever is broken in your systems that makes it less likely for women to get elected. They have downsides, but to focus exclusively on the downsides is to accept the status quo.

If you don't like gender quotas, but you accept that the reason they exist is to address systemic barriers to entry, shouldn't you be suggesting alternatives to quotas that will be at least as effective at eliminating those barriers?

AnGaelach

oscarBravo wrote: »

The argument goes that since there is no legal bar on women standing for election, nor on other women voting for them, there's no problem: everything's hunky dory, and if a woman is the right person for the job, she'll be elected. Which leads to the dichotomy you rejected out of hand: either there are half as many women sufficiently capable of being elected representatives as there are men; or there are other issues at play.

Yeah, that women don't want to stand for the elections or can't attract enough support to do so.

By saying that women making up 50% of the electorate, the Dáil should be 50% women - that also means since I'm a white Irish male, I should only vote for white Irish males?

Stop trying to play identity politics.

Professor Moriarty

AnGaelach wrote: »

Yeah, that women don't want to stand for the elections or can't attract enough support to do so.

By saying that women making up 50% of the electorate, the Dáil should be 50% women - that also means since I'm a white Irish male, I should only vote for white Irish males?

Stop trying to play identity politics.

Given equal opportunity, one cohort of human beings should be as successful as another cohort of human beings in most endeavours, politics being one such endeavour. Would you agree?

Count Dooku

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Given equal opportunity, one cohort of human beings should be as successful as another cohort of human beings in most endeavours, politics being one such endeavour.

And what stopping women to be as successful as men in politics?

Professor Moriarty

Count Dooku wrote: »

And what stopping women to be as successful as men in politics?

Care to respond to my question?

Widdershins

Ireland has already had two female presidents-more than America has ever had.

What a strange point. There's no bar to women making a career in politics. The logical explanation is that the number of women in politics is reflective of the preferences of those particular women, and nothing more.

There's no need to have any particular configuration of genders represented in politics.

Count Dooku

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Care to respond to my question?

TBH I don't see a real question
You made an assumption and presented it as a fact, while I don't consider your assumption as an axiom because I don't see anything which artificially stops women to be in politics as successful as men

oscarBravo

AnGaelach wrote: »

Yeah, that women don't want to stand for the elections or can't attract enough support to do so.

That's a reasonable assessment. What's not reasonable is stopping there, and not asking why it's the case.

By saying that women making up 50% of the electorate, the Dáil should be 50% women - that also means since I'm a white Irish male, I should only vote for white Irish males?

No. Don't be silly. There's no logical way you can arrive at the latter part of that sentence from the former.

I bet if you thought really hard about it, you could figure out all by yourself why, logically, it would make sense for the makeup of the Dáil to broadly track the makeup of the electorate, besides people only voting for people like them.

I'll even give you a hint: think mathematics, rather than identity politics.

Now, I can't force you think logically about the issue, but I can invite you to do so. If you choose not to, that's up to you.

Count Dooku

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a reasonable assessment. What's not reasonable is stopping there, and not asking why it's the case. No. Don't be silly. There's no logical way you can arrive at the latter part of that sentence from the former.

Probably for the same reasons why women are less attracted by engineering jobs. Dirty politics are not so attractive for majority of women and most of them like to rely on men there
If woman is capable for the politics, nothing will stop her to get there

oscarBravo

Count Dooku wrote: »

Probably for the same reasons why women are less attracted by engineering jobs. Dirty politics are not so attractive for majority of women and most of them like to rely on men there

Yeah, my sister has come across a lot of that sort of patronising generalisation in her engineering career.

If woman is capable for the politics, nothing will stop her to get there

So, your answer is yes: the fact that there are fewer women in politics is because women are less capable?

Count Dooku

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, my sister has come across a lot of that sort of patronising generalisation in her engineering career.

Where did I say that there are no women at all in engineering?

oscarBravo wrote: »

So, your answer is yes: the fact that there are fewer women in politics is because women are less capable?

Actually I used less 'attractive for majority of women'

Professor Moriarty

Count Dooku wrote: »

TBH I don't see a real question
You made an assumption and presented it as a fact, while I don't consider your assumption as an axiom because I don't see anything which artificially stops women to be in politics as successful as men

I'm trying to establish a principle. What do you think of it?

marienbad

Count Dooku wrote: »

Where did I say that there are no women at all in engineering?

Actually I used less 'attractive for majority of women'

The question is why is politics less attractive for the majority of women ?

oscarBravo

Count Dooku wrote: »

Where did I say that there are no women at all in engineering?

You didn't. You just said that most women don't want to be engineers or politicians, which is a meaningless truism, because most men don't want to be engineers or politicians either.

Actually I used less 'attractive for majority of women'

Assuming you mean attractive for a smaller percentage of women than for men, why do you think so? As in, what evidence do you have for it, and if it's true, why is it so?

the_syco

marienbad wrote: »

The question is why is politics less attractive for the majority of women ?

No, the question is; why do women not only vote for women?

Freedom of choice, I would assume; perhaps they don't agree with what the candidate stands for.

But who cares. Lets put a quota in place so that X amount of women will be in the dail. Not entirely sure how this will happen if no-one votes for them?

AnGaelach

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a reasonable assessment. What's not reasonable is stopping there, and not asking why it's the case.

Because they don't want to. Men are "underrepresented" in things like social care, should we then ask why men don't want to do it and call for 50% of the workforce being male? No. Every person makes their own decisions, you trying to force things onto them that they do not necessarily desire - solely because you think it's a good idea.

oscarBravo wrote: »

No. Don't be silly. There's no logical way you can arrive at the latter part of that sentence from the former.

Of course it is, you're arguing for identity politics - that since the electorate is half female, logically the Dáil should be half-female. How do you think that's going to come about, exactly? By men voting for women and women voting for men?

If the Dáil should reflect the electorate, that means that I should vote for white Irish men since they're the ones who "reflect" me.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I bet if you thought really hard about it, you could figure out all by yourself why, logically, it would make sense for the makeup of the Dáil to broadly track the makeup of the electorate, besides people only voting for people like them.

I'll even give you a hint: think mathematics, rather than identity politics.

Now, I can't force you think logically about the issue, but I can invite you to do so. If you choose not to, that's up to you.

But that is exactly what you are doing. You are espousing an identitarian philosophy. It is also completely anti-democratic, to impose what you believe to be "fair" at the expense of what people want to vote for.

You're pretending to be logical but you aren't. You're engaging in handwringing and feel-good nonsense, the very same thing that has caused the Boomerang Effect in the US and Britain.

Stop trying to play identity politics, and just let it be a god damn meritocracy like it should be.

AnGaelach

Count Dooku wrote: »

Where did I say that there are no women at all in engineering?

He's trying to score victim points.

Professor Moriarty

AnGaelach wrote: »

Because they don't want to. Men are "underrepresented" in things like social care, should we then ask why men don't want to do it and call for 50% of the workforce being male? No. Every person makes their own decisions, you trying to force things onto them that they do not necessarily desire - solely because you think it's a good idea.



Of course it is, you're arguing for identity politics - that since the electorate is half female, logically the Dáil should be half-female. How do you think that's going to come about, exactly? By men voting for women and women voting for men?

If the Dáil should reflect the electorate, that means that I should vote for white Irish men since they're the ones who "reflect" me.



But that is exactly what you are doing. You are espousing an identitarian philosophy. It is also completely anti-democratic, to impose what you believe to be "fair" at the expense of what people want to vote for.

You're pretending to be logical but you aren't. You're engaging in handwringing and feel-good nonsense, the very same thing that has caused the Boomerang Effect in the US and Britain.

Stop trying to play identity politics, and just let it be a god damn meritocracy like it should be.

If society's primary principle is 'meritocracy' then where does that leave people who might not be as capable as other people, e.g. blind people? Where does it leave people who are raised in relatively disadvantaged circumstances? Where does it leave people who are discriminated against because of colour, gender or creed? A true meritocracy implies equality of opportunity.

osmiumartist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Given equal opportunity, one cohort of human beings should be as successful as another cohort of human beings in most endeavours, politics being one such endeavour. Would you agree?

Cohorts of people are different from other cohorts.
So very provably no is the answer.

osmiumartist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If society's primary principle is 'meritocracy' then where does that leave people who might not be as capable as other people, e.g. blind people?

Already dealt with.
You want a blind guy piloting your next flight to Majorca to suit your diversity quota?

Professor Moriarty

osmiumartist wrote: »

Cohorts of people are different from other cohorts.
So very provably no is the answer.

Indeed some are. But my question relates to politics. Which cohorts of people, given equal opportunities, are more capable than others?

Professor Moriarty

osmiumartist wrote: »

Already dealt with.
You want a blind guy piloting your next flight to Majorca to suit your diversity quota?

Please do quote any post where I mentioned quotas.

osmiumartist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Please do quote any post where I mentioned quotas.

Tell us then how you plan on making these blind people have the exact same opportunities as non-blind.
Otherwise you'll just have to agree that groups of people (the blind) are not cut out for some things other groups are.

osmiumartist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed some are. But my question relates to politics. Which cohorts of people, given equal opportunities, are more capable than others?

It doesn't have to be capability as already shown. It can be desire to do so.

osmiumartist

oscarBravo wrote: »

You didn't. You just said that most women don't want to be engineers or politicians, which is a meaningless truism, because most men don't want to be engineers or politicians either.

Well that's one way to be needlessly pedantic.
Most is the equivalent of more here. It was a very simple point he was making, you must really be deliberately trying to not understand it.

Professor Moriarty

osmiumartist wrote: »

Tell us then how you plan on making these blind people have the exact same opportunities as non-blind.
Otherwise you'll just have to agree that groups of people (the blind) are not cut out for some things other groups are.

I'd like for them to be given as much support as possible for them to fulfill their potential in whichever endeavour was feasible for them. So flying a plane isn't feasible but, for instance, politics is. So we support blind people more than we support people who can see, thus working towards equality of opportunity. Would you disagree?

Professor Moriarty

osmiumartist wrote: »

It doesn't have to be capability as already shown. It can be desire to do so.

That doesn't answer my question.

AnGaelach

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If society's primary principle is 'meritocracy' then where does that leave people who might not be as capable as other people, e.g. blind people? Where does it leave people who are raised in relatively disadvantaged circumstances? Where does it leave people who are discriminated against because of colour, gender or creed? A true meritocracy implies equality of opportunity.

Are you going to honestly sit there and tell me that women don't have the same equality of opportunity as men?

What you are arguing for with quotas is not "equality of opportunity" you are arguing for "equality of outcome" which is utter nonsense.

AnGaelach

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'd like for them to be given as much support as possible for them to fulfill their potential in whichever endeavour was feasible for them. So flying a plane isn't feasible but, for instance, politics is. So we support blind people more than we support people who can see, thus working towards equality of opportunity. Would you disagree?

No, because the resources being expended on accommodating that person is ridiculously high.

A blind person can still stand for election, there's no law banning them from doing so. People won't vote for them because they don't want to - that is the essence of democracy.

You aren't calling for equality of opportunity, you want equality of outcome, even when that runs over the democratic process.

Professor Moriarty

AnGaelach wrote: »

Are you going to honestly sit there and tell me that women don't have the same equality of opportunity as men?

What you are arguing for with quotas is not "equality of opportunity" you are arguing for "equality of outcome" which is utter nonsense.

'Sit there'? Are you spying on me? Is this The Truman Show?

Yes, in general, women still don't have equality of opportunity. Though it is changing.

If you could turn down the dial on your righteous indignation for a moment, again, I haven't mentioned quotas.

Professor Moriarty

AnGaelach wrote: »

No, because the resources being expended on accommodating that person is ridiculously high.

A blind person can still stand for election, there's no law banning them from doing so. People won't vote for them because they don't want to - that is the essence of democracy.

You aren't calling for equality of opportunity, you want equality of outcome, even when that runs over the democratic process.

So the extra resources being spent to provide a blind person with enough education to compete in politics is 'ridiculously high'. What is your rationale for this position?