Harriet Harman calls for 50% quota for female shadow cabinet members

nobodyspecial

I appreciate what you are saying Shakethedisease, but are you really saying that when recruiting eg dustmen, recruitment should be in abeyance until 50% are women? The same goes for sewerage workers. Traditionally these roles are filled by men, but should they be? And are women really prepared to give up dominance in their perceived dominant areas, midwifery etc ? If ever conscription were to come to our armed forces again, I presume women would expect to be called for frontline action along with the men, and would not use their sex/children as an excuse not to comply???

Degenerate

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You will never be perceived to BE the best person for it. That's the problem. And that's why there are so few women in positions of power. Men appoint them.

Wake up.

The people that need to wake up are those like you, whose utterly defective thinking leads them to assume that in any field of endeavour where women do not fill 50% of the roles, it must be due to discrimination.

Women and men are different. These differences lead to different options in life. This leads fewer women to choose certain options than men. Only an imbecile would regard this as a problem. As others have said, equality of opportunity is what matters. Equality of outcome is an unachievable and undesirable goal, generally only pursued by misandrists who are bitterly jealous at their own lack of a penis.

What really sickens me about your and Harperson's variety of claptrap is the implied denigration of those women who do the sterling work of perpetuating the species, like they're letting the side down. We'll be a seriously damaged society if we ever get to your nirvana where the ultimate aspiration of any woman is to be exactly like a man.

Kohoutek

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Mabye the question should be, that despite women making up 50% (ish) of the population, why the government and those that make decsions for us,.. is still so bloody male domainated ?

Do you disagree with every decision male politicians make and agree with every decision female politicians make? How do you think having more women in the cabinet would affect those 'decisions for us'?

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You will never be perceived to BE the best person for it. That's the problem. And that's why there are so few women in positions of power. Men appoint them.

Wake up.

That's absolute rubbish. It's not the 70s anymore. In many of the most desirable parts of the private sector (e.g. law, accountancy) there is a 50/50 split at graduate recruitment and there are a considerable number of female partners, and their numbers are increasing.

Degenerate

nobodyspecial wrote: »

I appreciate what you are saying Shakethedisease, but are you really saying that when recruiting eg dustmen, recruitment should be in abeyance until 50% are women? The same goes for sewerage workers. Traditionally these roles are filled by men, but should they be? And are women really prepared to give up dominance in their perceived dominant areas, midwifery etc ? If ever conscription were to come to our armed forces again, I presume women would expect to be called for frontline action along with the men, and would not use their sex/children as an excuse not to comply???

Female chauvinists never give straight answers to situations when the shoe is on the other foot. Like my earlier question about university admissions, where equal gender quotas would have forced 35,000 females to be rejected in favour of males last year.

Generali

Degenerate wrote: »

Female chauvinists never give straight answers to situations when the shoe is on the other foot. Like my earlier question about university admissions, where equal gender quotas would have forced 35,000 females to be rejected in favour of males last year.

Or indeed the educational system as a whole which seems to give very good outcomes to girls and Asians whilst giving very poor outcomes to blacks and boys on average.

It seems that some inequalities are less unequal than others in the world of the Harperson.

ILW

Could it be that overall, women are just not as bright as men?
Judging by the magazines many of them read (Hello, Celeb weekly etc), I think it is a fair assumption.

misskool

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You will never be perceived to BE the best person for it. That's the problem. And that's why there are so few women in positions of power. Men appoint them.

Wake up.

I'm well aware of it.

And I still believe there is no point appointing quotas. What you will get is a generation of women who will get a sense of entitlement to specific jobs because they are women and not because they are any good. I detest the idea that a woman should be given a job because of her gender.

A lot of the reason why women are less dominant in certain jobs is due to lack of childcare (like it or lump it, women are still primary offspring carers) and due to perceived lack of ability to do the jobs.

In higher education, the gender ratio at PhD level is 1:1, at postdoctoral level it's still the same but there are 10 male professors to every female professor (and that's if you're in a natural sciences department). Women don't apply because they perceive they won't be able to do the job, they don't put themselves forward for promotion because they think it's a team effort etc etc.

What you need to do is to change perception of women in that industry that they are good enough and there aren't actually that many things stopping them from taking up the posts available. Training women and empowering them to make the right choices for them (and not always the most high profile job depending on their priorities) will ensure you get a constant supply of highly trained competent women.

If you employ a quota or any discriminatory based selection, you will end up with a selection of persons who are just not going to be good enough for the job.

chewmylegoff

if the electorate was greatly concerned about the under representation of women at westminster, surely they would have done something about it by now?

maginot

I'm sorry, but any way you look at it. Positive discrimination is still discrimination. Yes, I belive sexism does still exist, as maternity costs and advertising can be major liabilities for firms. So why would they take the risk of hiring women in highly paid, responsible positions?

However this can be challenged by offering more rights to men and therefore businesses would have the same risk no matter which sex, and this would help recruitmnt opportunities. As has been mentioned by several posters it is only in some careers that women want this equality, but expecially in politics it should be down to the electorate to decide who represents them and they should be representative of EVERYONE not just their same sex.

People voted for Margaret Thatcher because of her ideology, not beacause she was a woman! No-one cared if it was a man or a woman but wanted the conservative views to lead their country.

Really2

The LA where my wife works 70% of staff are female, cant hear any calls to trim that to 50%?

Surely we live in a world now where want and suitability are more important for the job.

I dare say a lot less percent of women are interested in politics and that has more reflection on the number of MP's than anything else.

You never see any male makup sales people in debenhams, I for one do not find that surprising or sexist?