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

Really2

maginot wrote: »

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.

Spot on, in the end of the day they are representing people anyway not a sex.

They are not representing gender as a politician but representing their area and all within it, regardless of gender, colour, religion etc. (I am not bothered if they are male of female I will vote for the one I agree with)

I think the reason has come about is because Harman thinks more women would vote if their MP was female.
She is discriminating if she thinks that as she thinks women voters are so superficial they will vote on gender over policy.:eek:

chewmylegoff

the make up of MPs is probably more or less reflective of the split of people who actually want to do the job.

firstly there are more men in full time work fullstop than there are women, because a lot of women choose to work part time or not at all.

similarly, a job that requires long hours, and significant time spent away from home is likely to attract more men than women, in my opinion.

i don't think there is anything particularly concerning about this. if the point is that women are equally capable as men are at doing all jobs, then it follows that it doesn't matter whether the people doing it are mostly men because of the nature of the role, as they will be equally capable as the women that might have done it.

finally, and no this isn't serious, women probably don't feel the need to be MPs as much because they get their fill of bossing other people around at home.

lostinrates

chewmylegoff wrote: »

finally, and no this isn't serious, women probably don't feel the need to be MPs as much because they get their fill of bossing other people around at home.

I'd be content to boss more people about.

drc

Can't stand the woman. She epitomises everything that I hated about nuLabour.

carolt

Degenerate wrote: »

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.

I'd agree that the sexes are different and that women will not necessarily want to do exactly the same as men.

BUT from that it does not logically follow that the existing set-up re equality of opportunity is perfect.

Saying that you're not necessarily aiming at 50/50 in every area is a bit of a cop-out as it allows situations like the one we have re the proportion of female MPs to continue. The fact is that we cannot draw an automatic conclusion from the number of female MPs that this 'proves' in some way that only a small proportion of women actually want to be MPs.

Really suggests, for example, that few women want to be MPs because the hours are too long - however why is this not reflected across the board in other full-time jobs like lawyers or GPs where the number of women is rising all the time and I think (?) has overtaken men in both areas. We simply cannot draw that conclusion without knowing how many women apply to be MPs but are not selected by their parties. I'd actually say that with the v long holidays, roughly akin to school holidays, being an MP would be quite a good job for a working mum these days; certainly more family-friendly than being a lawyer, say.

I suspect that the current low number of female MPs reflects more than either women's basic inadequacy (as misskool implies), or their lack of desire to take on the job (as Really suggests).

We don't know.

What we do know, though, is that we have one of the lowest proportions of female MPs of any advanced country. We also know that in places like Scandinavia where positive discrimination was introduced in this area, the balance has now righted itself incredibly speedily.

Groups like the Fawcett Society have been trying to increase women's participation rates in politics for 100 years - and made barely discernible progress.

I think that women having a voice and women's views being represented in parliament is too important to allow it to lie for another 100 years.

I really do. Passionately.

Really2

carolt wrote: »

Really suggests, for example, that few women want to be MPs because the hours are too long - however why is this not reflected across the board in other full-time jobs like lawyers or GPs where the number of women is rising all the time and I think (?) has overtaken men in both areas. We simply cannot draw that conclusion without knowing how many women apply to be MPs but are not selected by their parties. I'd actually say that with the v long holidays, roughly akin to school holidays, being an MP would be quite a good job for a working mum these days; certainly more family-friendly than being a lawyer, say.

I suspect that the current low number of female MPs reflects more than either women's basic inadequacy (as misskool implies), or their lack of desire to take on the job (as Really suggests).

Did I!! (it was chewmylegoff not I)

But on the lack of desire debate could you explain why jobs such as makeup sales in debenahm etc (anything with a predominantly female workforce) are not 50% male?

Personally a lot of women I know really do not care much for politics, so I think that may be fairly representative of UK women as a whole.

Like I said this is more likely the reason behind it.

Really2 wrote: »

I think the reason has come about is because Harman thinks more women would vote if their MP was female.
She is discriminating if she thinks that as she thinks women voters are so superficial they will vote on gender over policy.:eek:

In reality if I thought everything done in life was for the benefit of men I would agree we should change, but I reality I cant see even with such small female reprisentation there is any sexist laws or laws in favour of men being passed.

So if we had a 50/50 split what would change? surly people count and their skills not gender.

carolt

You are suggesting that based on your experince, women have less interest in politics.

Welll, I'm a woman and I'm interested in politics and find that faintly patronising. I'm sure 100% unintentionally.

You seem to be implying that the proportion of women selling in make-up in Debenhams is as it is because - presumably - men don't wear make-up and aren't very interested in it ie it's a female-dominated sphere. To apply this analogy to the number of female MPs puts you on very dangerous ground, Really - are you really implying that politics is and should be a male-dominated sphere in the same manner that make-up is a female-dominated sphere???!!!

I sincerely hope not.

Images of 'women should be nice and pretty and not trouble their pretty little heads with all this important male politics stuff a la 1952' spring to mind here.

Scary insight into your psyche there, if I've not misunderstood your point... :eek:

Kohoutek

carolt wrote: »

I think that women having a voice and women's views being represented in parliament is too important to allow it to lie for another 100 years.

I think there's been quite a lot of progress over the last 100 hundred years – i.e. from women being 0% of MPs to women being 22% of MPs today. As far as I know the percentage is increasing between every Parliament.

I'm baffled by the approach that the best way to break down these perceived barriers is to create new ones that discriminate against a different group of people.

Shakethedisease

A local Conservative party chairman is at the centre of a row after telling Channel 4 News his position on David Cameron's call for more women in parliament: "If they're attractive, I would go for it" he said

I think the above just about sums it 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.

No, but I think there must be something that happening 'behind the scenes' that is stopping so many women getting to the top in politics. Rants like your's are probably repeated on every 'selection committee' round the country every election time. We aren't talking about jobs that require the more 'traditional' ( as has been spun out in this thread ad finitum ).. manly, sweaty and physically difficult type of jobs. Were talking about people who respresent huge swathes of the UK in positions of power. Women are hopelessly under-represented. The 50% stuff about 'in any field of endeavor' and women 'leading us all into battles'.. is again irrelevant to THIS discussion. Lets not get silly now. We're talking about politics.

Women and men are different. These differences lead to different options in life. This leads fewer women to choose certain options than men.

I think the word 'choose' should be used very loosely. Women can 'choose' and educated to do whatever they want. As per comments here about graduates etc. Wether they actually get the job due to old-fashioned views like yours and the ever present 'old boys' network is another matter entirely.

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

Please run that by the peeps in the benefits forums, DT and some of the people that post in this one about the implied degeneration, and in complete defence/praising women having lots of children in order to perpetuate the species. I could do with the laugh.

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.

You're on complete cross-swords with me there. I don't think any woman should be 'exactly' like a man to get on in politics. On the contrary, I think more women should be in power precisely because of their inherent differences. It brings a more rounded dimension to the table.

Think perhaps, of the tradional 'male only' holiday.. and then think of the one where they bring their girlfriends along too ? A simple analogy, but works for me. And in reverse come to that.

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'?

Of course not. But I do think there may be a little less emphasis on war mongering and a little more emphasis on the more 'traditonal' female roles in society. Most of which are vastly underpaid ( care, part-time work, nursing etc etc).. and the woeful lack of affordable childcare for, in the main, women to get out and work. I could go on and on there. I see lots of comments about women 'choosing this, and choosing that, choosing to stay at home, choosing not to work long hours like their male counterparts do.. I don't believe it for a second. They don't have anyone to watch the kids. Simple as that.
Even when they do, they're paid less than men are for the equivilent work.

But, I want to stress that I don't mean a a LOT of emphasis on the above, I mean that hopefully there would be a little more concern about these sorts of things. A little goes a long way sometimes.

I stand by my holiday comment.

At the end of the day, I feel there is nothing wrong with a 50% split in cabinet. I at no point did I say that I welcomed positive discrimination to get it there. I simply asked 'why not'. Why aren't they there already by natural means ? After some of the rabid anti-women 'chained to the kitchen sink bare foot and pregnant where she 'chooses' to be' replies here I'm beginning to think mabye that's the only way to go !

The glass ceiling still well in action in the UK today and we all know it..

Out of interest would everyone be ok if there was to be a 50% split ? Any concerns ?

Really2

carolt wrote: »

You are suggesting that based on your experince, women have less interest in politics.

Welll, I'm a woman and I'm interested in politics and find that faintly patronising. I'm sure 100% unintentionally.

You seem to be implying that the proportion of women selling in make-up in Debenhams is as it is because - presumably - men don't wear make-up and aren't very interested in it ie it's a female-dominated sphere. To apply this analogy to the number of female MPs puts you on very dangerous ground, Really - are you really implying that politics is and should be a male-dominated sphere in the same manner that make-up is a female-dominated sphere???!!!

I sincerely hope not.

Images of 'women should be nice and pretty and not trouble their pretty little heads with all this important male politics stuff a la 1952' spring to mind here.

Scary insight into your psyche there, if I've not misunderstood your point... :eek:

err, you have problems carol, where the F did that come from:mad:?

I don't know you but I know about 40 women and non have any real interest in politics so why the hell should that be patronising, it is a fact on personal experience.

I'm not imply anything should be gender dominated, I am saying that it is more than likely based on interest in the area not lack of oppertunity and a mans club like you believe. (unless you think women dominated jobs are women clubs but accept that as an OK form of sexisum, personally I do not have a problem with women dominated jobs)

You are on the dangerous ground as you want jobs to be gender proportional and compleatly ignore the fact that some people may not want to do the jobs and that their may be a gender split because men and women have different interests etc.


Where you got all the above from I do not know but it is fairly obvious who has the problem with gender and does not accept people for who they are and it aint me.

Less women apply to go in the army than men also? I suppose that is a strange insight in to my psyche also.:eek:

If you want a 50% front line in iraq and force women to serve to make up the numbers I am sure they will thank you for it, and their parents.

You are looking for this to be sexist, the reprisentation of UK politics looks more racist than sexist but that does not seem to rile you as much?
I won't try to make out you are a racist, using the same kind of warped logic you use.