Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

Bad Panda · 17-02-2012 05:41PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yup, we are still on that ol' feminist's arn't doing enough for men's rights bandwagon.

Seriously, can you not comprehend the point being made?

Bad Panda · 17-02-2012 05:43PM

PrincessLola wrote: »

Your question is childish to the extreme. Feminism's goal is to promote rights for women so they can be on level with men. female rights leads to increased equality.

You want to know why there was never a 'masculist' movement? Because men never needed one in the same way women did. Men ran the show for generations. That isn't a politaically incorrect thing to say thats the truth.

I'd be (genuinely) interested to know what rights men have over women in this country?

Seachmall · 17-02-2012 05:44PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

The question isn't childish, it determines the hierarchy of goals.

It aims to determine a false hierarchy of goals which are in turn defined by you.

"False hierarchy" because it's a false dichotomy.

"Defined by you" because it's a framed question.

This is very basic stuff.

neuro-praxis · 17-02-2012 05:46PM

Bad Panda wrote: »

I'd be (genuinely) interested to know what rights men have over women in this country?

You get an F for reading only one page of this thread.

PrincessLola · 17-02-2012 05:47PM

Bad Panda wrote: »

I'd be (genuinely) interested to know what rights men have over women in this country?

In terms of intitutionalised rights I said 'had'. I wasn't talking in the present tense.
Now internalised attitudes torwards gender is a whole other story and these affect every aspect of society.

Benny_Cake · 17-02-2012 05:50PM

The argument that feminist groups should be fighting for the rights of males in order to retain any credibility seems ridiculous to me, but it's no different to what happens any time anybody gets involved in activism, regardless of the subject:

- You're campaigning for the Palestinians? What about people being shot dead in Syria?

- You're raising money to send to East Africa? What about poverty here - charity starts at home?

And so on - following that logic, any time someone took up one cause, they would have to take up every cause.

There are a number of issues that are specific to men, the big one would be the rights of fathers, smaller ones might relate to age of consent / statutory rape issues, as mentioned. Generally speaking they are stand alone issues. The biggest issues for men in Ireland today - unemployment, access to healthcare, mental health and so on, also affect women.

Scanlas The 2nd · 17-02-2012 05:53PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

You learn that I value nOt having sex with my father more than my mother.

Sure, but it's not of any importance or relevance to the real world.

Thus it's a worthless question.

Presenting an ultimatum and forcing someone to pick one choice, knowing that choice doesn't represent anything about their position, is not a question worth asking.

And the danger of giving an answer is someone might mistake that answer as if it's actually meaningful, which is perfect reason not to answer the ludicrous question.

Likewise my question determines whether you value increasing female rights or gender equality more?

Do you want to know what a feminists position is, one they actively strive to achieve, or do you want to know what they'd do in extreme circumstances with only the 2 options you provide?

I think it's very relevant since I've heard a lot from feminists about the importance of gender equality. Now if you choose an action which increases female rights but decreases equality you would question how important gender equality really is to them.

Seachmall · 17-02-2012 06:03PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I think it's very relevant since I've heard a lot from feminists. Now if you choose an action which increases female rights but decreases equality you would question how important gender equality really is to them.

But it's not a valid question. As a result it doesn't warrant a valid response. Even if you get a response it doesn't provide any valid information.

Do you want to know

A) What a feminist's position is, one they actively strive to achieve

or

What they'd do in extreme circumstances with only the 2 options you provide

(A) Allows for an intelligent discussion. I suggest you take this route.

(B) Implies a "I don't care what your true position is just give me ammo to build a strawman" agenda. This is where you're at.

Scanlas The 2nd · 17-02-2012 06:15PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I think it's very relevant since I've heard a lot from feminists. Now if you choose an action which increases female rights but decreases equality you would question how important gender equality really is to them.

But it's not a valid question. As a result it doesn't warrant a valid response. Even if you get a response it doesn't provide any valid information.

Do you want to know

A) What a feminist's position is, one they actively strive to achieve

or

What they'd do in extreme circumstances with only the 2 options you provide

(A) Allows for an intelligent discussion. I suggest you take this route.

(B) Implies a "I don't care what your true position is just give me ammo to build a strawman" agenda. This is where you're at.

I want to know the primary goals of feminism, what are they?

Seachmall · 17-02-2012 06:20PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I want to know the primary goals of feminism, what are they?

Great. There's a question that works.

Now, I'd answer that as:

Identifying areas where women are at a disadvantage and working to improve them.

Scanlas The 2nd · 17-02-2012 06:23PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I want to know the primary goals of feminism, what are they?

Great. There's a question that works.

Now, I'd answer that as:

Identifying areas where women are at a disadvantage and working to improve them.

And if that is in fact the goals I don't view feminists as hypocrites, but other sources don't say that.

Benny_Cake · 17-02-2012 06:24PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

And if that is in fact the goals I don't view feminists as hypocrites, but other sources don't say that.

What other sources are you referring to?

Scanlas The 2nd · 17-02-2012 06:27PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

And if that is in fact the goals I don't view feminists as hypocrites, but other sources don't say that.

What other sources are you referring to?

The wiki link someone posted.

It states gender equality for women is the goal, and considering how often you hear feminist talk about equality you can understand why I would thInk it is the goal.

Benny_Cake · 17-02-2012 06:36PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

The wiki link someone posted.

It states gender equality for women is the goal, and considering how often you hear feminist talk about equality you can understand why I would thInk it is the goal.

It's quite a long thread but going by the Wikipedia article on feminism:

"Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women".

I can't see how that differs in any way from the definition that Seachmall provided. Obviously there are some areas where women have equal rights to men and there are a few where they haven't. Pursuing improvements in those areas to acheive equal rights in no way diminishes the rights of men.

Scanlas The 2nd · 17-02-2012 06:40PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

The wiki link someone posted.

It states gender equality for women is the goal, and considering how often you hear feminist talk about equality you can understand why I would thInk it is the goal.

It's quite a long thread but going by the Wikipedia article on feminism:

"Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women".

I can't see how that differs in any way from the definition that Seachmall provided. Obviously there are some areas where women have equal rights to men and there are a few where they haven't. Pursuing improvements in those areas to acheive equal rights in no way diminishes the rights of men.

From that definition equal rights is the goal so I'd women have more rights feminists should either reduce their rights or increase men's rights or a bit of both.

Search mall said feminism is about finding areas where women are at a disadvantage and seeking to improve their rights. This does not include reducing women's rights when they have more rights.

Benny_Cake · 17-02-2012 06:45PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

From that definition equal rights is the goal so I'd women have more rights feminists should either reduce their rights or increase men's rights or a bit of both.

Search mall said feminism is about finding areas where women are at a disadvantage and seeking to improve their rights. This does not include reducing women's rights when they have more rights.

Ok, looking at areas where women have more rights (and there aren't many) - the one that leaps out are the rights of separated or unmarried fathers. Now if feminist groups are campaiging to prevent improvements in these areas for men then you may have a point. But I've seen no evidence that this is the case. Feminist groups naturally focus their campaigning energies on areas where women are at a disadvantage to men, which is understandable and what any campaigning group would do.

Scanlas The 2nd · 17-02-2012 06:50PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It states gender equality for women is the goal, and considering how often you hear feminist talk about equality you can understand why I would thInk it is the goal.

But if women aren't equal then that falls under gender equality.

They're aren't exclusive and are very much dependent on each other.
You can be against poverty and only focus on proverty in Ireland.

You can be against AIDS and only focus on AIDS in Africa.

You can be against racism and only focus on racism against blacks.

You can be against gender inequality and only focus on gender inequalities against women.

Those goals aren't exclusive, they're absolutely related. Nor are they hypocritical.

To argue otherwise is pedantic. The term "feminist" clearly provides the context under which feminists act.

Yes but can feminism worldwide be against gender Inequality but never ever campaign to remove an unfair advantage? It just so happens that's it's always about removing disadvantage, every single time. If gender equality is the goal like I said countless times, then it's hypocritical. It's an organisation using a very pc term and sounding righteous but then they only choose campaigns that remove disadvantage and never remove advantage. Quite convenient.

Scanlas The 2nd · 17-02-2012 06:52PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

From that definition equal rights is the goal so I'd women have more rights feminists should either reduce their rights or increase men's rights or a bit of both.

Search mall said feminism is about finding areas where women are at a disadvantage and seeking to improve their rights. This does not include reducing women's rights when they have more rights.

Ok, looking at areas where women have more rights (and there aren't many) - the one that leaps out are the rights of separated or unmarried fathers. Now if feminist groups are campaiging to prevent improvements in these areas for men then you may have a point. But I've seen no evidence that this is the case. Feminist groups naturally focus their campaigning energies on areas where women are at a disadvantage to men, which is understandable and what any campaigning group would do.

Yes it's natural if the goal is not gender equality, then it's not hypocritical.
If the goal is to remove female disadvantage then there actions are in alignment with the values of the cause.

I think this is a reason it's hard to discuss sexism, many people are under the impression feminism's goal is gender equality so when it's only one sided it can be annoying.

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 07:29PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Yes it's natural if the goal is not gender equality, then it's not hypocritical.
If the goal is to remove female disadvantage then there actions are in alignment with the values of the cause.

You have made this huge assumption that feminists do not campaign on the issues where men are discriminated against. You persist in this false premise even though you have been presented with ample evidence to the contrary.

It really is very simple. A person who identifies as feminist is primarily concerned with dealing with those issues where women are disadvantaged. This does not for a second mean they do not advocate for other causes - including campaigning against discrimination against men.
If fact, there is not a campaign or advocacy group working on social issues that doesn't have feminist involvement.

I have campaigned against the Romeo and Juliet Law - even though it does not personally effect me.
I was an advocate for people with AIDS - even though statistically I am in one of the lowest risk groups.
I have campaigned for equal rights for unmarried father's - my son is an unmarried father and has spoken at national conferences on this. He is far better qualified to speak on this issue then I am - just as I am far better able to speak on women's issues then he is. That does not mean that I do not help him in every way I can or that he is unconcerned about the issues women face.

I know feminists who work in the field of global human rights, who work as advocates for the elderly, the disabled, children, immigrants, Travellers, etc.

It has been my experience that feminism informs and makes people aware of injustice and often lead people to campaign against injustice in all its forms.

The problem is that feminism has received such bad press that it became tainted in the public mind. Granted - this bad press was often fed by some who spouted extremist views far removed from the mainstream but TBH I see many of these people as nothing more then Mejia hoors always ready with the controversial soundbite - a type that is not confined to feminism as a glance at FOX news any night will confirm.
This bad image has been fed by BS about being PC and 'right-on' and spun into making it seem like the issues which affect men are the direct result of feminism, that indeed feminists caused these things to happen, and it simply is not true.

The law re:unmarried parents was enacted in 1964 - long before there was a women's movement. Yet, we get the blame.

The Romeo and Juliet Law (Irish Version) is a hastily enacted, badly thought out piece of knee jerk legislation rushed through as a result of Supreme Court rulings. It had nothing to do with feminist lobbing - yet we get the blame.

Scanlas The 2nd · 17-02-2012 07:34PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Yes it's natural if the goal is not gender equality, then it's not hypocritical.
If the goal is to remove female disadvantage then there actions are in alignment with the values of the cause.

You have made this huge assumption that feminists do not campaign on the issues where men are discriminated against. You persist in this false premise even though you have been presented with ample evidence to the contrary.

It really is very simple. A person who identifies as feminist is primarily concerned with dealing with those issues where women are disadvantaged. This does not for a second mean they do not advocate for other causes - including campaigning against discrimination against men.
If fact, there is not a campaign or advocacy group working on social issues that doesn't have feminist involvement.

I have campaigned against the Romeo and Juliet Law - even though it does not personally effect me.
I was an advocate for people with AIDS - even though statistically I am in one of the lowest risk groups.
I have campaigned for equal rights for unmarried father's - my son is an unmarried father and has spoken at national conferences on this. He is far better qualified to speak on this issue then I am - just as I am far better to speak on women's issues then he is. That does not mean that I do not help him in every way I can or that he is unconcerned about the issues women face.

I know feminists who work in the field of global human rights, who work as advocates for the elderly, the disabled, children, immigrants etc.

It has been my experience that feminism informs and makes people aware of injustice and often lead people in campaigning against injustice in all its forms.

The problem is that feminism has received such back press that it became tainted in the public mind. Granted - this bad press was often fed by some who spouted extremist views far removed from the mainstream but TBH I see many of these people as nothing more then Mejia hoors always ready with the controversial soundbite - a type that is not confined to feminism as a glance at FOX news any night will confirm.
This bad image has been fed by BS about being PC and 'right-on' and spun into making it seem like the issues which affect men are the direct result of feminism, that indeed feminists caused these things to happen, and it simply is not true.

The law re:unmarried parents was enacted in 1964 - long before there was a women's movement. Yet, we get the blame.

The Romeo and Juliet Law (Irish Version) is a hastily enacted, badly thought out piece of knee jerk legislation rushed through as a result of Supreme Court rulings. It had nothing to do with feminist lobbing - yet we get the blame.

Feminists have done some fantastic things, I agree.

Like you say if feminism is about removing disadvantage for women then im not criticising feminists.

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 07:49PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Feminists have done some fantastic things, I agree.

Like you say if feminism is about removing disadvantage for women then im not criticising feminists.

That is exactly what it about.

It also tends to lead to feminists working to remove discrimination and disadvantage where ever it occurs.
Once one's eyes have been opened to the the inequalities people face it is impossible to close them again.

pickarooney · 17-02-2012 08:10PM

Can you be both a feminist and a masculinist? Does it not get a bit laborious having to have a label for every set of rights you want unwronged?

Pesky spell-checker puts red lines under every variation of masculinist/masculist/mastitis I try.

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 08:20PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Can you be both a feminist and a masculinist? Does it not get a bit laborious having to have a label for every set of rights you want unwronged?

Pesky spell-checker puts red lines under every variation of masculinist/masculist/mastitis I try.

It really is just a way of saying where your main focus is - or in my case a way of examining society and social structures that informs my world view. Some may see it as blinkers that narrows the gaze to one issue only, but I think it is obvious that everyone here who has identified as feminist would consider it to be a way of expanding awareness of social injustice.

As for labels - hell I am
A woman.
A lesbian.
A socialist.
A diabetic.
An academic.
A mother.
A grandmother.
A sister.
An aunt.
Irish.
European.
White.
Middle Aged.
Short (ish).
A secularist.
Agnostic

and the list goes on........

yawha · 17-02-2012 08:27PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Can you be both a feminist and a masculinist? Does it not get a bit laborious having to have a label for every set of rights you want unwronged?

Of course you can. And unless there was some kind of onus on you to regularly recite each label you felt you identified with, it's not really laborious at all.

Feathers · 17-02-2012 09:06PM

Seachmall wrote: »

It's not a valid question.

You're framing it so there are only two possible outcomes neither of which accurately represent their position or intent.

"Would you rather have sex with your mother or your father?"

So then in that case I would answer "Neither, I'm not interested in incest". What would the feminist group answer in the same situation. "I'm neither interested in gender equality or women's rights"?

There are times when increasing women's rights & equality are opposed — like the gender quotas within politics. Women's groups like the NWC actively campaigned for this. If it was important to have equal numbers of women & men in the Oireachtas, why didn't they campaign for the areas which they themselves have identified as keeping women out at present? Gender quotas if anything mask the real issue. But they do get more women on the ballot paper.

hardbackwriter · 17-02-2012 09:34PM

PrincessLola wrote: »

Bad Panda wrote: »

I'd be (genuinely) interested to know what rights men have over women in this country?

In terms of intitutionalised rights I said 'had'. I wasn't talking in the present tense.
Now internalised attitudes torwards gender is a whole other story and these affect every aspect of society.

Internalized thought, sounds like someone wants to police how people think

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 09:38PM

Feathers wrote: »

So then in that case I would answer "Neither, I'm not interested in incest". What would the feminist group answer in the same situation. "I'm neither interested in gender equality or women's rights"?

There are times when increasing women's rights & equality are opposed — like the gender quotas within politics. Women's groups like the NWC actively campaigned for this. If it was important to have equal numbers of women & men in the Oireachtas, why didn't they campaign for the areas which they themselves have identified as keeping women out at present? Gender quotas if anything mask the real issue. But they do get more women on the ballot paper.

The introduction of quotas is mooted as one way to address the fact that we currently have a record 23 women TDs out of a total of 166 but the female population is at least 50%. The arguments for it are outlined here: http://www.wethecitizens.ie/talk/article/gender_quotas.
I agree it masks the real issues of why more women don't participate in politics and the only good thing that can be said is it gets more women on the ballot paper.
It reminds me of a campaign called the 300 Group that was active in the UK in the 80s, they advocated that all women should vote strictly according to gender. Personally, nothing and no-one would have ever convinced me to vote for Thatcher (or Harney, Hanifin, Coughlan, Creighton etc).

Some interesting stuff on the whole topic of female participation in politics for anyone interested in the subject here: http://books.google.ie/books?id=mILx0t2x0D0C&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=vote+300+women+in+parliament&source=bl&ots=Hy-8Mlov8o&sig=eNbeOt7XFGCqjN21ej3w3lUfrVs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-bc-T5_oJ8W5hAfNz9jOBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=vote%20300%20women%20in%20parliament&f=false

There has also been discussion around the Funeral attending culture prevalent in Irish politics and the fact that many women just don't feel comfortable with that.
There has been discussion on the fact that the Dail sits quite late on the 3 days (oh it's 4 now but no-one seems to bother turning up on Friday) the Dail sits and as women are still usually the primary care givers for children how this puts them at a disadvantage.

TBH this quota stuff just strike me as the typical response we have grown used to from Irish governments - a bit of badly thought out legislation trying to band aid a solution without never having to examine the whole structure had what problems are inherent in that structure and then change them.
Heaven forbid we should examine our political culture too closely - who knows what we may discover...:eek:

As for changing anything......HA!

Feathers · 17-02-2012 09:54PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The introduction of quotas is mooted as one way to address the fact that we currently have a record 23 women TDs out of a total of 166 but the female population is at least 50%. The arguments for it are outlined here: http://www.wethecitizens.ie/talk/article/gender_quotas.
I agree it masks the real issues of why more women don't participate in politics and the only good thing that can be said is it gets more women on the ballot paper.
It reminds me of a campaign called the 300 Group that was active in the UK in the 80s, they advocated that all women should vote strictly according to gender. Personally, nothing and no-one would have ever convinced me to vote for Thatcher (or Harney, Hanifin, Coughlan, Creighton etc).

Some interesting stuff on the whole topic of female participation in politics for anyone interested in the subject here: http://books.google.ie/books?id=mILx0t2x0D0C&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=vote+300+women+in+parliament&source=bl&ots=Hy-8Mlov8o&sig=eNbeOt7XFGCqjN21ej3w3lUfrVs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-bc-T5_oJ8W5hAfNz9jOBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=vote%20300%20women%20in%20parliament&f=false

There has also been discussion around the Funeral attending culture prevalent in Irish politics and the fact that many women just don't feel comfortable with that.
There has been discussion on the fact that the Dail sits quite late on the 3 days (oh it's 4 now but no-one seems to bother turning up on Friday) the Dail sits and as women are still usually the primary care givers for children how this puts them at a disadvantage.

TBH this quota stuff just strike me as the typical response we have grown used to from Irish governments - a bit of badly thought out legislation trying to band aid a solution without never having to examine the whole structure had what problems are inherent in that structure and then change them.
Heaven forbid we should examine our political culture too closely - who knows what we may discover...:eek:

As for changing anything......HA!

Yeah, exactly so my point is firstly that this is an example of a feminist group actively campaigning for something that is unlikely to bring equality, but does increase women's right.

Secondly, this isn't a gender issue — it's about getting more 'non-traditional' people involved in politics. This is were I meant that having a concerted effort from all people affected by the current set-up, not just women, would work better than this. It's not about women campaigning for male suicide rates. It is rather about not drawing up a group in the first place under the actual false dichotomy — the gender battle lines — around issues that aren't in-and-of themselves gender related.

For example, take a naturalised citizen who is a single father. They would face all of the 4 Cs, presumably, that have been put forward as the reason we don't have enough women in politics — cash, culture, childcare and confidence.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have focus in campaign groups, I'm saying that we should have more intelligent focus. Have a group around the issue of people trying to get involved in politics; another around people who face childcare issues; another around sexist attitudes within society — but focus them on the issues primarily. What would be the downside of this?

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 10:33PM

Feathers wrote: »

Yeah, exactly so my point is firstly that this is an example of a feminist group actively campaigning for something that is unlikely to bring equality, but does increase women's right.

Secondly, this isn't a gender issue — it's about getting more 'non-traditional' people involved in politics. This is were I meant that having a concerted effort from all people affected by the current set-up, not just women, would work better than this. It's not about women campaigning for male suicide rates. It is rather about not drawing up a group in the first place under the actual false dichotomy — the gender battle lines — around issues that aren't in-and-of themselves gender related.

For example, take a naturalised citizen who is a single father. They would face all of the 4 Cs, presumably, that have been put forward as the reason we don't have enough women in politics — cash, culture, childcare and confidence.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have focus in campaign groups, I'm saying that we should have more intelligent focus. Have a group around the issue of people trying to get involved in politics; another around people who face childcare issues; another around sexist attitudes within society — but focus them on the issues primarily. What would be the downside of this?

I do agree with you. But as you say there are feminist groups that advocate quotas, but as has been said before, feminism does not mean a hive mind.

Now as I understand it the reason quotas are being proposed is that drastic measures are needed and this was the route taken by many countries. That argument does have some merit.

Do not believe for a second that debate is not taking place with feminism about this issue.

This would sum up the arguments I have heard on both sides of the debate within the feminist movement:

Quotas: Pros and Cons

Cons

Quotas are against the principle of equal opportunity for all, since women are given preference over men.
Quotas are undemocratic, because voters should be able to decide who is elected.
Quotas imply that politicians are elected because of their gender, not because of their qualifications and that more qualified candidates are pushed aside.
Many women do not want to get elected just because they are women.
Introducing quotas creates significant conflicts within the party organization.
Quotas violate the principles of liberal democracy.

Pros

Quotas for women do not discriminate, but compensate for actual barriers that prevent women from their fair share of the political seats.
Quotas imply that there are several women together in a committee or assembly, thus minimizing the stress often experienced by the token women.
Women have the right as citizens to equal representation.
Women's experiences are needed in political life.
Election is about representation, not educational qualifications.
Women are just as qualified as men, but women's qualifications are downgraded and minimized in a male-dominated political system.
It is in fact the political parties that control the nominations, not primarily the voters who decide who gets elected; therefore quotas are not violations of voters' rights.
Introducing quotas may cause conflicts, but may be only temporarily.
Quotas can contribute to a process of democratisation by making the nomination process more transparent and formalised.

Feathers · 17-02-2012 11:58PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I do agree with you. But as you say there are feminist groups that advocate quotas, but as has been said before, feminism does not mean a hive mind

That's true, I'm not saying all feminists have the same opinion, but you'd have to agree surely that for someone not involved in a feminist movement, the NWC comes across very much as the official mouthpiece of feminism in the country.

& the fact that there are conflicting views "within feminism" further makes the point that it's surely about lots of small issues & doesn't need this banner of feminism over the top of it.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Quotas imply that there are several women together in a committee or assembly, thus minimizing the stress often experienced by the token women.

Hadn't heard this point before - seems like the only good reason for having them. Although even then it'd only work for the seats rather than the ballot.

(Didn't get into the rest of your pros & cons, as that seems like a whole other thread altogether

)

Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

Comments