For sure, but it's not about a specific cause, it's about a result. Are capable women contributing? If not, quotas address that problem (aside from specific instances in which women are almost entirely disinterested/don't have the skills to enter form outside), whether we are talking direct intervening to keep women out or some kind of instance in which capable women aren't interested.

Again, people are being picked on merit here because we are discussing capable women. An organisation concerned with merit has nothing to fear because the people the quota insists they pick are capable. In terms of merit, there is no reason for an organisation to complain. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The causes which create male-female disparities in certain professions exist at different levels of the professional hierarchy in question. For example, lets assume fewer women are being accepted to courses/academic programs in STEM fields, and that women face more obstacles during their courses, causing fewer of them to graduate. The existing market of qualified graduates might be male heavy through no fault of any individual women (it would be the fault of the prior discrimination), and companies requiring technical STEM skills would have no choice but to hire mostly men as a result.

Quotas at the top don't account for or solve imbalances that are stratified throughout a hierarchy. We have to start at the bottom, which is where my concern has long rested, and that's a broader discussion of economic issues that transcend gender and race.

Did you read mine?

We're all capable of being the president (Trump proves that). So should we work to ensure that Ivanka Trump becomes the next president? (She does have the potential after-all). — VagabondSpectre

Interpret what is written in the stupidest way possible. That'll work.

Interpret what is written in the stupidest way possible. That'll work. — Banno

How do you move from accessibility ramps to gendered Parliamentary ramps?

Make a stupid comparison, get a stupid interpretation.

SO this is just yet another pissing competition.

The evidence is there in the results for the ALP cited by . Culture is malleable.

Quotas at the top don't account for or solve imbalances that are stratified throughout a hierarchy. — VagabondSpectre

Evidence?

http://oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/4891/Why_quotas_work_for_gender_equality.html

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-experimental-political-science/article/do-gender-quotas-really-reduce-bias-evidence-from-a-policy-experiment-in-southern-africa/9C64EDE9CA9C1B60C0428A57A823872C

https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/news-item/a-gender-agenda-the-effectiveness-of-quota-systems-in-increasing-womens-meaningful-participation-in-politics/

https://www.aeaweb.org/research/can-gender-quotas-help-improve-quality-of-politicians

Why stop mid stream? Shy bladder? :grin:

I think you're doing an obvious bait and switch by using the analogy of accessibility ramps in the context that you have done. By its very definition, people need to win the privilege of becoming a political representative, and as such, everyone's respective ramps should be at the same incline.

That's one crux of our disagreement. You want to implement a reverse bias to counteract the existing bias which primarily serves rich white men, while I want to remove the bias which presently favors rich white men. Your way actually complicates things in theory, because then we need to counter every extant advantage with a respective proportional ramp for every conceivable demographic

Everyone, regardless of ability or race or gender should have access to a guaranteed set of rights that everyone shares, and that includes having reasonable access to public buildings. It's a universal right that we extend to individuals. Becoming a political representative is not a universal right that we can guarantee to everyone, the best we can do is try to set the game up to be as fair as possible. Rigging the game such that you get parity in gender outcomes isn't same as having a game where people have the same amount of opportunity to use their capabilities to succeed in the first place.

Evidence? — Banno

Let's assume the worst, and take it for granted that patriarchy is operant and causally dominant at every level of society. By treating it as a simple and purely top down problem (assuming parity at the top with trickle down to parity at all levels), it may amount to mere "tokenism". If a body politic isn't capable of voting for politicians who uphold egalitarian values, regardless of their gender or gender quotas, how much can we achieve beyond symbolic gesture? Won't women still wind up getting the short end in all the ways that they currently do?

That is to say, if it's just rich cis white het power-having males making all the decisions merely permit some women to win political office, won't they still hold the power? Won't they just select women willing to maintain their desired status quo? Political beliefs wont need to change, only optics.

I suspect we might disagree less if we wen't using political office as an example to explore, as it is something that relies on meritocracy, regardless of preconditions. A level playing field in our election processes has importance beyond civil rights.

I want to remove the bias which presently favors rich white men. — VagabondSpectre

How?

The ERA would have set a strong global example, and would have given courts a kick in the direction of actually criminalizing sexist discrimination as unconstitutional. They would have had to explore where they could apply that law in practice, but in states where state-level ERA's have been adopted there is a trend for courts to actually find in favor of plaintiffs in discrimination suits.

Societal values themselves need to keep progressing until we finally understand that we aren't and should not be defined by the circumstances of our birth or the contents of our limbic systems. Relatively extreme economic inequality is itself a present and major source of "privilege" that we can look at through a lens of racial averages, but that's just one potentially misleading fraction of the picture. Poor white families in Appalachia don't dominate or benefit from what happens in Washington. Many of the dominant forces in our society are ultimately white and male owned or operated, but they neither represent nor serve the mean, median or mode white male (or really anyone but their major stakeholders).

Massive reform is required across many levels of government, not least campaign finance laws (which in theory hamstring female candidates by selling political influence to rich white men). If there were more rich women, or less sexist rich men, we would see more investment in female candidates, but I wouldn't expect a change of anything but the shape of the talking head. I don't have the answers, but I know turning knobs in the dark until we have desirable optics isn't a strategically coherent approach.

I know turning knobs in the dark until we have desirable optics isn't a strategically coherent approach. — VagabondSpectre

Nice rhetoric. What we know is that quota systems change culture - not always, but enough to be considered.

Here's the deal: given preselection candidates of roughly equal competence, select the woman. Do this until the bias is removed, or it is apparent that it's not working. then stop.

People cannot express a preference for woman politicians unless there are women politicians for whom to vote.

People cannot express a preference for woman politicians unless there are women politicians for whom to vote. — Banno

Is that because political preference is, in the strict sense, only expressed through voting?

People cannot express a preference for woman politicians unless there are women politicians for whom to vote. — Banno

I want the parity in outcomes to be a consequence of equal opportunities, and maybe getting there requires some messy generalizing, but I'm not that kind of radical (I think we're getting there without it, and more deeply rooted/widespread problems are my more immediate concerns).

A "preference for female politicians" is a bit strange to me, as we're supposed to be voting based on policy. I get that we can help to program culture with quotas at the top, but I'm reluctant condone it for necessity. A bottom up or system wide approach (such as an ERA) achieves the same result without arbitrary top down correction (arguably interfering with "democratic freedom"). That said, reform is required, which should go a long way to solving our present issues regarding inequality of outcomes.

Here's the deal: given preselection candidates of roughly equal competence, select the woman. Do this until the bias is removed, or it is apparent that it's not working. then stop. — Banno

I'm not actually opposed to this, but this isn't the same as a quota. Where differences in merit are indistinguishable, I could care less who gets the job, and if promoting more women in this way has long-term or indirect benefits, I'm all for it. I'm not in favor of passing over more meritorious candidates in pursuit of quota targets.

I want to remove the bias which presently favors rich white men. — VagabondSpectre

Does the bias exist to any large degree in modern wester society or is it merely an assumption based on a bygone era? As for the whole “white” issue. So what? Is it at all surprising that wealthy nations (predominantly white) produce a lot of predominantly white rich people? If the population, demarcated by arbitrary phenotypes, was split 50/50 then I would expect figures to rest, or be moving toward, a roughly equal distribution. Note: I don’t think it is fair to assess somewhere like the US by these measures because the extent of the problem there is historically more significant (esp. in the South).

Anyone ever considered that women vote for who they believe are the best candidates and that such women are not sexist so simply vote for who they believe in rather than what they’ve got between their legs?

If women want more women to represent in the government then they should back them. I don’t see how we can blame men for how women vote? At a stretch you can try and attach some narrative of social manipulation to the story, but wouldn’t that be belittling to women’s ability to make their own rational choices?

I don’t quite see whether men are white or not has much relevance to talk about “Men’s Rights” and “Women’s Rights”? Of course we can push the history of this in how “feminism” was racist in earlier days, but is that massively relevant now given that women are women and men are men?

Does the bias exist to any large degree in modern wester society or is it merely an assumption based on a bygone era — I like sushi

Money does buy power, and that's a root issue (along with relative economic inequality). That most rich entities are white is mere circumstance.

I don’t think it does buy meaningful longterm power. If you think shifting money around will solve the issue then I don’t see how given any assumption that money is the overwhelming force of power. If that is not your position then you’ve defeated your own position by claiming that the power of money is the root issue.

As for economics resources are never distributed equally because if they were society would be massively inefficient - in this sense economic inequality is part and parcel of a fully functional society in which a variety of people’s with different personal and group affiliations live(be this difference by trade or merely aesthetic tastes).

The true societal force lies in the ability of its citizens - which dictate the allocation of resources where they most “benefit” society (meaning “benefit” as in, don’t fall below the baseline efficiency).

I don’t think it does buy meaningful longterm power. If you think shifting money around will solve the issue then I don’t see how given any assumption that money is the overwhelming force of power. If that is not your position then you’ve defeated your own position by claiming that the power of money is the root issue. — I like sushi

I said it is a root issue. I'm characterizing money in politics, and it will take deeper reform than shifting money to ameliorate our electoral systems as a whole.

As for economics resources are never distributed equally because if they were society would be massively inefficient - in this sense economic inequality is part and parcel of a fully functional society in which a variety of people’s with different personal and group affiliations live(be this difference by trade or merely aesthetic tastes). — I like sushi

I'm not arguing for the equal distribution of resources, I'm arguing for less relative unequal distribution of resources, and perhaps a rearrangement of the relationship between industrial-corporate profits and deferred costs.

The true societal force lies in the ability of its citizens - which dictate the allocation of resources where they most “benefit” society (meaning “benefit” as in, don’t fall below the baseline efficiency). — I like sushi

Efficiency isn't everything though. I'm not objecting to capitalism per se, I'm objecting to broken markets, and a broken relationship between private wealth and political influence.

I'm characterizing money in politics, and it will take deeper reform than shifting money to ameliorate our electoral systems as a whole — VagabondSpectre

Campaign finance reform is a viable and direct solution. It would level the playing field and revolutionize the electoral system.

Then perhaps I'd vote, but until then, I refuse to give my assention to a muppet.

Campaign finance reform is a viable and direct solution. It would level the playing field and revolutionize the electoral system. — Merkwurdichliebe

:up:

They'll call it idealism, but we do need reform.

Edit: they will indeed. Lol

Quotas at the top don't account for or solve imbalances that are stratified throughout a hierarchy. — VagabondSpectre

In white collar professions that tends not to be the case. In medicine and law more graduate entrants are female than male, yet most of the people in senior positions are male. My observation is that in business generally, men only slightly outnumber women at the graduate entry level, but the upper echelons are dominated by men. SO in those professions at least, attention is needed at the medium to higher levels of the hierarchy.

Of course there are plenty of other problems that go across levels, such as the domination of women in poorly-paid 'caring' professions, and the lower participation of girls in STEM training. The arguments for and against quotas are different therefrom the ones that apply in parliaments and boardrooms. It is possible to be convinced that quotas won't work in increasing female STEM participation at the same time as favouring their introduction in boardrooms and political parties.

Personally, I think that carefully-designed quotas might be able to help in the STEM area as well, for class imbalance as well as sex imbalance. But that's a different discussion and the pros and cons are different.

Are you sure that shouldn't be Merkwürdigliebe? I am a novice at German but I am pretty sure there is no word "Merkwurdich".

I also wonder whether "seltsam" is a more appropriate translation of "strange" for Sellers' character, as it carries a connotation of "weird", whereas - so I understand - merkwürdig just means unusual, or at most "odd".

I'd be delighted to be corrected by any native German speakers.

We ought relate this back to the title.

In so far as feminism is about the improper use of gender in determining eligibility for social roles, it is as much an advantage to males as to females. — Banno

So it's a misnomer? That was a serious comment. I think a name change would help the cause of which you speak.

How do you move from accessibility ramps to gendered Parliamentary ramps? — VagabondSpectre

Even ramps have a gender now? What's the world coming to?

Sure, if you like. Not an easy thing to do.

Sure, if you like. Not an easy thing to do. — Banno

True. Especially when people deliberately exploit it. It seems to me that it was probably a better name historically than in modern times.

A better approach might be to do feminist things but not call them feminist...

A better approach might be to do feminist things but not call them feminist... — Banno

Yeah, but if we were to start a campaign or a group of activists or a movement or something, we'd probably need some sort of naming, wouldn't we? What kind of names would we use? Something to do with equality, I'd say, without wording relating to one specific gender and not the other.

I'm not in favor of passing over more meritorious candidates in pursuit of quota targets. — VagabondSpectre

I'm sorry, but that reminds me of Scott Morrison's comment that he wanted women to rise to leadership, so long as it was not at the expense of anyone else...

Yes, that's what he said.

All I can say is that you are not looking. — Banno

Lol. Well, with a brief google search on the topic and it looks clear that the problem is a totally inflamed political environment about the issue. Sure, for a reason.

The real question is the following: why don't women vote for women?

Look at it this way: Women have had the right to vote and be members of the Australian House of Representatives since and the Senate since 1902, right? Yet the first female member entered the house as did the first member of the senate in 1943 AND ONLY after 1980 has there been continuously women in the house of representatives. My question is why?

This is not a problem about men. This is a serious problem about Australian women.

Finnish women have been members of Parliament right from the start and we had the first female minister in an administration in 1926. We have had one female President (with several candidates), two female prime ministers and 79 female ministers of the 574 ministers of every administration there has been. Before 1990, Australia had had only 8 female cabinet ministers.