|
On November 19 2013 01:08 Djzapz wrote:
Out of curiosity L1ghtning, what would you suggest do (actually) tackle issues regarding sexism? It's really hard to prosecute so bringing people to court is a largely ineffective way to deal with the current existing inequalities in most cases. The problem with your suggestion that the people who are intelligent and work hard hold the power doesn't account for the fact that men are, on average, given more opportunities. White men especially, as we hear so often - but it's true.
You say political feminism is an 'abomination' as if it had done something spectacularly bad, but they've been grossly ineffective at taking our privileges. And I agree that the 50/50 thing is ridiculous and I'm highly critical of those completely insane 'Tumblr Feminazis', but there's still work to be done and we can still get closer to equality - yet I see no convenient and easy way to get closer to equality. So you have to shuffle. The inegalitarian status quo is not necessarily inherently better than what feminist pressures could result in.
If it's too hard to prosecute it can be changed, and it will be changed. The laws aren't any better than the ppl who wrote them, but it's a work in progress. The beauty of the open market state is that it naturally fights against things like bias, racism and sexism, because if you don't hire the most qualified person, simply because she's a woman, and you happen to not like women, then your competition will hire her, and they will steal market shares from you, and maybe even run you out of business. This is not a structural problem, it's a behavioural problem, and you can only fix it by legal means. That's the only way that you can target the offenders without punishing the innocent.
The danger of feminism is that they strip away our freedoms. In Sweden they currently try to remove our rights to spread out our parental leave as we wish, and in many countries they have enforced 50/50 gender distribution. Then it was the swedish festival fiasco I mentioned earlier, where a number of festivals went with a 50/50 artist distribution. This was not something that they forced upon the festival organizers, but a major political party leader was involved in it.
I'm not buying the assumption that white men are given more opportunities. They are not given opportunities, rather they are creating opportunities. Success is something that you have to create.
The reason why white ppl are the most successful is because they're mostly descendants from the western european cultures, and these cultures have been the world leaders for hundreds of years. We are born with more wealth on average. Our parents and relatives are generally the most educated, and most successful in the world. Some of us have a father with a successful business, and a lot of knowledge to share that you wouldn't find out about in school. Some of us might get offered a entry job from a relative. There's a lot of advantages of being a white male, if you come from a successful family, but the advantages has to do with the environment and circumstances that you grow up in, rather than you being given free chances because of your skin color.
The reason why men are dominating over women is a more complex issue that noone could possibly answer without doing extensive research on the human body. It's true that we still live in a patriarchal society to some extent, but that doesn't mean that it's a unnatural construct. Men produces like 20 times as much testosterone as women, a hormone that have scientifically been linked to risky behaviour. It's ridiculous to assume that this doesn't have a major effect on our behaviour. Possibly the willingness to take chances could amplify your natural confidence, individualism and willingness to experiment, which are key traits for someone who wants to revolutionize their area of expertise. I've seen recent studies in school performance, which shows that women performs better on average. But the study also showed that if you only looked at the elite, the most successful students were actually predominately men. So, the elite men seems to outperform the elite women, even in academics, which seems to be the one thing that women performs better than men in on average. It's pretty clear if you look at the school results, and on society that men's performance is more hit and miss (probably based on whether they've found something to motivate them), while women are more stable and consistent. If anyone doesn't agree with this last paragraph, don't bother replying. I don't claim to know the answer to why men and women are different, I'm just showing that there might be other explanations to why we're different, other than "the patriarch corrupted us".
|
On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society.
Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird.
Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you.
|
On November 19 2013 07:12 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society. Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird. Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you.
well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas.
not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society.
|
On November 19 2013 07:12 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society. Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird. Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you.
If you assume that the ability to represent the interests of others is not dependant on sex or ethnic origin then:
If a people achieves exactly equal opportunities for all independent of gender or ethnic origin then you would expect their democratic representatives to look like a random sample of that people with regards to gender and ethnic origin.
Not be a random sample of course, just look like it.
|
On November 19 2013 07:27 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 07:12 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society. Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird. Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you. well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society.
Why does this go for members of parliament, but not for rubbish collectors (almost exclusively men), doctors (majority women), daycare personnel (almost exclusively women) or nuclear scientists (majority men)?
While I don't think there are any qualities needed for a member of parliament that makes men better at it than women, and I am not opposed at all to having a representative distribution, I am very much against positive discrimnation "forcing" political parties to put women in prominent positions for the mere fact that they are women.
|
On November 19 2013 07:40 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 07:27 Paljas wrote:On November 19 2013 07:12 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society. Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird. Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you. well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society. Why does this go for members of parliament, but not for rubbish collectors (almost exclusively men), doctors (majority women), daycare personnel (almost exclusively women) or nuclear scientists (majority men)? While I don't think there are any qualities needed for a member of parliament that makes men better at it than women, and I am not opposed at all to having a representative distribution, I am very much against positive discrimnation "forcing" political parties to put women in prominent positions for the mere fact that they are women.
So it's not weird to seek a representative sample of a people holding the reins of society any more, it's just positive discrimination that you object to?
I think most advocates of positive discrimination think that, like democracy itself, it's the worst possible solution to the problem... except for all the other solutions.
|
On November 19 2013 07:40 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 07:27 Paljas wrote:On November 19 2013 07:12 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society. Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird. Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you. well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society. Why does this go for members of parliament, but not for rubbish collectors (almost exclusively men), doctors (majority women), daycare personnel (almost exclusively women) or nuclear scientists (majority men)? While I don't think there are any qualities needed for a member of parliament that makes men better at it than women, and I am not opposed at all to having a representative distribution, I am very much against positive discrimnation "forcing" political parties to put women in prominent positions for the mere fact that they are women.
well, yes all the jobs you listed should probably a more equal distribution.
however the big difference to the parliament is the special function it has.
unlike a nuclear scientist, the parliament has a representative function. not having a equal distribution probably hurts this function. and while positive discrimination isnt the ideal scenario, it certainly solves this problem without causing to much problems.
|
On November 19 2013 07:46 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 07:40 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 07:27 Paljas wrote:On November 19 2013 07:12 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society. Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird. Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you. well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society. Why does this go for members of parliament, but not for rubbish collectors (almost exclusively men), doctors (majority women), daycare personnel (almost exclusively women) or nuclear scientists (majority men)? While I don't think there are any qualities needed for a member of parliament that makes men better at it than women, and I am not opposed at all to having a representative distribution, I am very much against positive discrimnation "forcing" political parties to put women in prominent positions for the mere fact that they are women. So it's not weird to seek a representative sample of a people holding the reins of society any more, it's just positive discrimination that you object to? I think most advocates of positive discrimination think that, like democracy itself, it's the worst possible solution to the problem... except for all the other solutions.
Well, I don't see it as a goal in and of itself. You make a good point that there is no reason men should be inherently better at it than women, although being a member of parliament also has to do with power, and I believe it's something generally associated with males to want to be in charge, so the job might simply attract more men than women.
I am against positive discrimination, because IF there are equal numbers of women who want the job, AND there is nothing inherent about the job that makes men better qualified for it, THEN there should be equal representation, and if there isn't that needs to be addressed... but at the level it is problematic.
For instance, there has been some research (can't remember where I read it, but I might be able to dig it up) that shows women have more confidence in male politicians than female. Presumably this translates into votes as well. That could be a reason for having more men in parliament than women. However, positive discrimination would be a terrible solution to this: you would undermine your own political system.
And that is just muddying the issue, because I am not even sure there ARE equal numbers of women to men who want a job in parliament.
|
On November 19 2013 07:53 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 07:40 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 07:27 Paljas wrote:On November 19 2013 07:12 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society. Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird. Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you. well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society. Why does this go for members of parliament, but not for rubbish collectors (almost exclusively men), doctors (majority women), daycare personnel (almost exclusively women) or nuclear scientists (majority men)? While I don't think there are any qualities needed for a member of parliament that makes men better at it than women, and I am not opposed at all to having a representative distribution, I am very much against positive discrimnation "forcing" political parties to put women in prominent positions for the mere fact that they are women. well, yes all the jobs you listed should probably a more equal distribution. however the big difference to the parliament is the special function it has. unlike a nuclear scientist, the parliament has a representative function. not having a equal distribution probably hurts this function. and while positive discrimination isnt the ideal scenario, it certainly solves this problem without causing to much problems.
I disagree. There is absolutely nothing stopping girls from doing an engineering degree. It's just incredibly unappealing to most of them. Partially because men are simply better at focused abstract thought than women (there are plenty of neurological experiments on this), which is important for the math you need for engineering (and quite alot of other STEM disciplines), and partially because there is something societal which makes tinkering with gadgets a typically male thing to do: it might have the same root cause, but by now is something cultural.
I don't think it's a bad thing... I just think it's a thing.
Similarly, I don't think it's bad that more and more doctors are women, nor that garbage collectors are mostly men... and there's plenty of jobs that I think are unequally distributed, but no feminist is up in arms about. It's basically just members of parliament and CEOs that you hear a lot about.
|
On November 19 2013 07:54 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 07:46 Dapper_Cad wrote:On November 19 2013 07:40 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 07:27 Paljas wrote:On November 19 2013 07:12 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society. Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird. Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you. well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society. Why does this go for members of parliament, but not for rubbish collectors (almost exclusively men), doctors (majority women), daycare personnel (almost exclusively women) or nuclear scientists (majority men)? While I don't think there are any qualities needed for a member of parliament that makes men better at it than women, and I am not opposed at all to having a representative distribution, I am very much against positive discrimnation "forcing" political parties to put women in prominent positions for the mere fact that they are women. So it's not weird to seek a representative sample of a people holding the reins of society any more, it's just positive discrimination that you object to? I think most advocates of positive discrimination think that, like democracy itself, it's the worst possible solution to the problem... except for all the other solutions. Well, I don't see it as a goal in and of itself. You make a good point that there is no reason men should be inherently better at it than women, although being a member of parliament also has to do with power, and I believe it's something generally associated with males to want to be in charge, so the job might simply attract more men than women. I am against positive discrimination, because IF there are equal numbers of women who want the job, AND there is nothing inherent about the job that makes men better qualified for it, THEN there should be equal representation, and if there isn't that needs to be addressed... but at the level it is problematic. For instance, there has been some research (can't remember where I read it, but I might be able to dig it up) that shows women have more confidence in male politicians than female. Presumably this translates into votes as well. That could be a reason for having more men in parliament than women. However, positive discrimination would be a terrible solution to this: you would undermine your own political system. And that is just muddying the issue, because I am not even sure there ARE equal numbers of women to men who want a job in parliament.
If the average female voter has more confidence in a male politician than a female politician (again assuming equal ability) then it's because they are, on average, sexist. That sexism might be a symptom of growing up in a sexist society. The same could be argued of the desire to have a job in parliament. Or you could argue that a parliament is set up to make it less attractive to women because it's also the product of a sexist society.
If you accept equal ability then what you have is a deep problem with mechanisms which self reinforce.
Breaking out a pattern of discrimination in no easy task.
|
On November 19 2013 08:06 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 07:53 Paljas wrote:On November 19 2013 07:40 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 07:27 Paljas wrote:On November 19 2013 07:12 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society. Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird. Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you. well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society. Why does this go for members of parliament, but not for rubbish collectors (almost exclusively men), doctors (majority women), daycare personnel (almost exclusively women) or nuclear scientists (majority men)? While I don't think there are any qualities needed for a member of parliament that makes men better at it than women, and I am not opposed at all to having a representative distribution, I am very much against positive discrimnation "forcing" political parties to put women in prominent positions for the mere fact that they are women. well, yes all the jobs you listed should probably a more equal distribution. however the big difference to the parliament is the special function it has. unlike a nuclear scientist, the parliament has a representative function. not having a equal distribution probably hurts this function. and while positive discrimination isnt the ideal scenario, it certainly solves this problem without causing to much problems. I disagree. There is absolutely nothing stopping girls from doing an engineering degree. It's just incredibly unappealing to most of them. Partially because men are simply better at focused abstract thought than women (there are plenty of neurological experiments on this), which is important for the math you need for engineering (and quite alot of other STEM disciplines), and partially because there is something societal which makes tinkering with gadgets a typically male thing to do: it might have the same root cause, but by now is something cultural. I don't think it's a bad thing... I just think it's a thing. Similarly, I don't think it's bad that more and more doctors are women, nor that garbage collectors are mostly men... and there's plenty of jobs that I think are unequally distributed, but no feminist is up in arms about. It's basically just members of parliament and CEOs that you hear a lot about.
Ofc feminist wouldn't be up in arms about that, they are there to promote more rights for women, not more rights for men. The whole "equal rights" story is more or less a facade anyways, as seen at your examples.
edit:
On November 19 2013 08:15 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 07:54 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 07:46 Dapper_Cad wrote:On November 19 2013 07:40 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 07:27 Paljas wrote:On November 19 2013 07:12 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society. Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird. Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you. well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society. Why does this go for members of parliament, but not for rubbish collectors (almost exclusively men), doctors (majority women), daycare personnel (almost exclusively women) or nuclear scientists (majority men)? While I don't think there are any qualities needed for a member of parliament that makes men better at it than women, and I am not opposed at all to having a representative distribution, I am very much against positive discrimnation "forcing" political parties to put women in prominent positions for the mere fact that they are women. So it's not weird to seek a representative sample of a people holding the reins of society any more, it's just positive discrimination that you object to? I think most advocates of positive discrimination think that, like democracy itself, it's the worst possible solution to the problem... except for all the other solutions. Well, I don't see it as a goal in and of itself. You make a good point that there is no reason men should be inherently better at it than women, although being a member of parliament also has to do with power, and I believe it's something generally associated with males to want to be in charge, so the job might simply attract more men than women. I am against positive discrimination, because IF there are equal numbers of women who want the job, AND there is nothing inherent about the job that makes men better qualified for it, THEN there should be equal representation, and if there isn't that needs to be addressed... but at the level it is problematic. For instance, there has been some research (can't remember where I read it, but I might be able to dig it up) that shows women have more confidence in male politicians than female. Presumably this translates into votes as well. That could be a reason for having more men in parliament than women. However, positive discrimination would be a terrible solution to this: you would undermine your own political system. And that is just muddying the issue, because I am not even sure there ARE equal numbers of women to men who want a job in parliament. If the average female voter has more confidence in a male politician than a female politician (again assuming equal ability) then it's because they are, on average, sexist. That sexism might be a symptom of growing up in a sexist society. The same could be argued of the desire to have a job in parliament. Or you could argue that a parliament is set up to make it less attractive to women because it's also the product of a sexist society. If you accept equal ability then what you have is a deep problem with mechanisms which self reinforce. Breaking out a pattern of discrimination in no easy task.
You don't have to accept equal ability to not like mechanisms which self reinforce. I don't believe in equal ability because we are different, so in some areas one group is bound to be better than the other. On the other hand, I don't ike self reinforcing mechanisms because they promote staleness and not the necessary change should it be needed. 
|
feminist like racist 100 years ago. In time people will realize they were ignorant and actually were fighting against equality.
|
On November 19 2013 08:15 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 07:54 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 07:46 Dapper_Cad wrote:On November 19 2013 07:40 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 07:27 Paljas wrote:On November 19 2013 07:12 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society. Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird. Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you. well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society. Why does this go for members of parliament, but not for rubbish collectors (almost exclusively men), doctors (majority women), daycare personnel (almost exclusively women) or nuclear scientists (majority men)? While I don't think there are any qualities needed for a member of parliament that makes men better at it than women, and I am not opposed at all to having a representative distribution, I am very much against positive discrimnation "forcing" political parties to put women in prominent positions for the mere fact that they are women. So it's not weird to seek a representative sample of a people holding the reins of society any more, it's just positive discrimination that you object to? I think most advocates of positive discrimination think that, like democracy itself, it's the worst possible solution to the problem... except for all the other solutions. Well, I don't see it as a goal in and of itself. You make a good point that there is no reason men should be inherently better at it than women, although being a member of parliament also has to do with power, and I believe it's something generally associated with males to want to be in charge, so the job might simply attract more men than women. I am against positive discrimination, because IF there are equal numbers of women who want the job, AND there is nothing inherent about the job that makes men better qualified for it, THEN there should be equal representation, and if there isn't that needs to be addressed... but at the level it is problematic. For instance, there has been some research (can't remember where I read it, but I might be able to dig it up) that shows women have more confidence in male politicians than female. Presumably this translates into votes as well. That could be a reason for having more men in parliament than women. However, positive discrimination would be a terrible solution to this: you would undermine your own political system. And that is just muddying the issue, because I am not even sure there ARE equal numbers of women to men who want a job in parliament. If the average female voter has more confidence in a male politician than a female politician (again assuming equal ability) then it's because they are, on average, sexist. That sexism might be a symptom of growing up in a sexist society. The same could be argued of the desire to have a job in parliament. Or you could argue that a parliament is set up to make it less attractive to women because it's also the product of a sexist society. If you accept equal ability then what you have is a deep problem with mechanisms which self reinforce. Breaking out a pattern of discrimination in no easy task.
I don't think you have the grounds to make the conclusion that it is due to sexism. If there is something inherent in the general male psychological profile which makes them appear to exert more power and control over the situation than with women, then all other things being equal, there will be a tendency for women to vote for men based on those appearances which is legitimate (well as legitimate as it gets in terms of choosing a representative; typically people vote people in based on their personal characteristics moreso than their technical policies).
But even assuming there is no argument to be made there and men and women both appear to project the same confidence, there's the question of how many women are interested in these positions in the first place. I think, assuming acrofales research is correct, that if there are meaningful differences that lead to a disproportionate level of men over women in the STEM fields, could not there also be a tendency for men to be those who seek power and control; much more so than women? So there is a much larger pool of interest from one sex over the other.
I'm not really sure if these issues have been studied at all, but it would be good to clarify that there really is no difference before assuming that people are sexist because they feel more comfortable with male leaders over female leaders.
|
On November 19 2013 08:19 JustPassingBy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 08:06 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 07:53 Paljas wrote:On November 19 2013 07:40 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 07:27 Paljas wrote:On November 19 2013 07:12 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society. Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird. Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you. well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society. Why does this go for members of parliament, but not for rubbish collectors (almost exclusively men), doctors (majority women), daycare personnel (almost exclusively women) or nuclear scientists (majority men)? While I don't think there are any qualities needed for a member of parliament that makes men better at it than women, and I am not opposed at all to having a representative distribution, I am very much against positive discrimnation "forcing" political parties to put women in prominent positions for the mere fact that they are women. well, yes all the jobs you listed should probably a more equal distribution. however the big difference to the parliament is the special function it has. unlike a nuclear scientist, the parliament has a representative function. not having a equal distribution probably hurts this function. and while positive discrimination isnt the ideal scenario, it certainly solves this problem without causing to much problems. I disagree. There is absolutely nothing stopping girls from doing an engineering degree. It's just incredibly unappealing to most of them. Partially because men are simply better at focused abstract thought than women (there are plenty of neurological experiments on this), which is important for the math you need for engineering (and quite alot of other STEM disciplines), and partially because there is something societal which makes tinkering with gadgets a typically male thing to do: it might have the same root cause, but by now is something cultural. I don't think it's a bad thing... I just think it's a thing. Similarly, I don't think it's bad that more and more doctors are women, nor that garbage collectors are mostly men... and there's plenty of jobs that I think are unequally distributed, but no feminist is up in arms about. It's basically just members of parliament and CEOs that you hear a lot about. Ofc feminist wouldn't be up in arms about that, they are there to promote more rights for women, not more rights for men. The whole "equal rights" story is more or less a facade anyways, as seen at your examples. edit: Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 08:15 Dapper_Cad wrote:On November 19 2013 07:54 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 07:46 Dapper_Cad wrote:On November 19 2013 07:40 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 07:27 Paljas wrote:On November 19 2013 07:12 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society. Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird. Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you. well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society. Why does this go for members of parliament, but not for rubbish collectors (almost exclusively men), doctors (majority women), daycare personnel (almost exclusively women) or nuclear scientists (majority men)? While I don't think there are any qualities needed for a member of parliament that makes men better at it than women, and I am not opposed at all to having a representative distribution, I am very much against positive discrimnation "forcing" political parties to put women in prominent positions for the mere fact that they are women. So it's not weird to seek a representative sample of a people holding the reins of society any more, it's just positive discrimination that you object to? I think most advocates of positive discrimination think that, like democracy itself, it's the worst possible solution to the problem... except for all the other solutions. Well, I don't see it as a goal in and of itself. You make a good point that there is no reason men should be inherently better at it than women, although being a member of parliament also has to do with power, and I believe it's something generally associated with males to want to be in charge, so the job might simply attract more men than women. I am against positive discrimination, because IF there are equal numbers of women who want the job, AND there is nothing inherent about the job that makes men better qualified for it, THEN there should be equal representation, and if there isn't that needs to be addressed... but at the level it is problematic. For instance, there has been some research (can't remember where I read it, but I might be able to dig it up) that shows women have more confidence in male politicians than female. Presumably this translates into votes as well. That could be a reason for having more men in parliament than women. However, positive discrimination would be a terrible solution to this: you would undermine your own political system. And that is just muddying the issue, because I am not even sure there ARE equal numbers of women to men who want a job in parliament. If the average female voter has more confidence in a male politician than a female politician (again assuming equal ability) then it's because they are, on average, sexist. That sexism might be a symptom of growing up in a sexist society. The same could be argued of the desire to have a job in parliament. Or you could argue that a parliament is set up to make it less attractive to women because it's also the product of a sexist society. If you accept equal ability then what you have is a deep problem with mechanisms which self reinforce. Breaking out a pattern of discrimination in no easy task. You don't have to accept equal ability to not like mechanisms which self reinforce. I don't believe in equal ability because we are different, so in some areas one group is bound to be better than the other. On the other hand, I don't ike self reinforcing mechanisms because they promote staleness and not the necessary change should it be needed.
We are different != in some areas one group is bound to be better than the other. What you mean is groups are different. Which groups? And which group contains, on average, people who are better at representing the concerns of others?
|
On November 19 2013 08:44 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 08:15 Dapper_Cad wrote:On November 19 2013 07:54 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 07:46 Dapper_Cad wrote:On November 19 2013 07:40 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 07:27 Paljas wrote:On November 19 2013 07:12 Acrofales wrote:On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society. Why is it important to have a demographical representation of society in parliament? I am rather ambivalent to the idea of more women in politics, but the whole idea that parliament should follow the same demographic as the society in general is just plain weird. Edit: let me put it this way: you should vote for people because you agree with their ideas, not because they look like you. well, there should be a equal distribution in parliament, because there is no reason why men or women would have fundamently different ideas. not having a equal distribution in parliament is symptomatic for an unequal society. Why does this go for members of parliament, but not for rubbish collectors (almost exclusively men), doctors (majority women), daycare personnel (almost exclusively women) or nuclear scientists (majority men)? While I don't think there are any qualities needed for a member of parliament that makes men better at it than women, and I am not opposed at all to having a representative distribution, I am very much against positive discrimnation "forcing" political parties to put women in prominent positions for the mere fact that they are women. So it's not weird to seek a representative sample of a people holding the reins of society any more, it's just positive discrimination that you object to? I think most advocates of positive discrimination think that, like democracy itself, it's the worst possible solution to the problem... except for all the other solutions. Well, I don't see it as a goal in and of itself. You make a good point that there is no reason men should be inherently better at it than women, although being a member of parliament also has to do with power, and I believe it's something generally associated with males to want to be in charge, so the job might simply attract more men than women. I am against positive discrimination, because IF there are equal numbers of women who want the job, AND there is nothing inherent about the job that makes men better qualified for it, THEN there should be equal representation, and if there isn't that needs to be addressed... but at the level it is problematic. For instance, there has been some research (can't remember where I read it, but I might be able to dig it up) that shows women have more confidence in male politicians than female. Presumably this translates into votes as well. That could be a reason for having more men in parliament than women. However, positive discrimination would be a terrible solution to this: you would undermine your own political system. And that is just muddying the issue, because I am not even sure there ARE equal numbers of women to men who want a job in parliament. If the average female voter has more confidence in a male politician than a female politician (again assuming equal ability) then it's because they are, on average, sexist. That sexism might be a symptom of growing up in a sexist society. The same could be argued of the desire to have a job in parliament. Or you could argue that a parliament is set up to make it less attractive to women because it's also the product of a sexist society. If you accept equal ability then what you have is a deep problem with mechanisms which self reinforce. Breaking out a pattern of discrimination in no easy task. I don't think you have the grounds to make the conclusion that it is due to sexism. If there is something inherent in the general male psychological profile which makes them appear to exert more power and control over the situation than with women, then all other things being equal, there will be a tendency for women to vote for men based on those appearances which is legitimate (well as legitimate as it gets in terms of choosing a representative; typically people vote people in based on their personal characteristics moreso than their technical policies). But even assuming there is no argument to be made there and men and women both appear to project the same confidence, there's the question of how many women are interested in these positions in the first place. I think, assuming acrofales research is correct, that if there are meaningful differences that lead to a disproportionate level of men over women in the STEM fields, could not there also be a tendency for men to be those who seek power and control; much more so than women? So there is a much larger pool of interest from one sex over the other. I'm not really sure if these issues have been studied at all, but it would be good to clarify that there really is no difference before assuming that people are sexist because they feel more comfortable with male leaders over female leaders.
I clearly stated the assumption I've made. That women and men are equally capable of representing the interests of others. The rest follows I think.
The assumptions you've made are interesting though. What makes appearing to exert more power and control over a situation a better criterion for representing you in a democracy than what tie they wear or if you'd enjoy a drink with them in a bar? How does a tendency to seek power and control qualify someone for office?
|
On November 19 2013 08:30 jcroisdale wrote:
feminist like racist 100 years ago. In time people will realize they were ignorant and actually were fighting against equality.
What does this even mean? o.O
|
Women are better at some things while men are better at others.
Its a synergic system we have crafted long ago.
You can't be awesome at everything, there must be tradeoff.
/close thread.
Seriously you guys are writing paragraph long essay when everything is just so simple that it hurts.
|
Northern Ireland25000 Posts
On November 19 2013 05:53 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 05:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
To people like us who are interested in such matters yeah of course, for the populace as a whole I'm not so sure.
Obviously it's quite desirable to see more parity, just to have a more demographically representative society. My big question is how do we reach that ideal though. I think a great society is one where we wouldn't artificially force a demographically representative society but where it could naturally converge toward that ideal, without ever reaching perfection (that would be strange). I could say the same about the representation of women in positions of power within private companies. In other words, my question is, how do we facilitate the convergence toward more equality, without 'affirmative action' stuff that would 'oppress' men in favor of women. I could ask the same question about racially motivated discrimination and inequalities. Obviously it's a completely different can of worms and much of the issue can be traced back to social shit that needs to be worked on... The problem is a lot more complex to solve than people seem to give it credit. And it's not a rhetorical question here, I truly don't have a solution and I keep dealing with women who think the simple fix is fuck men they've had it easy those chauvinistic bastard, and on the other side you have those good souls who are currently high as fuck 'don't worry man it'll figure itself out yo'.
Instinctually I feel these issues are more subconscious (i.e, essentially ingrained) and thus the general cultural perception of women must change in order to facilitate a more egalitarian society. A full on cultural shift is super difficult to force, even with the hypothetical megalomaniacal powers I bestowed upon myself, never mind without those.
I think media outlets and their pandering of bullshit is one of the prime culprits, as is indeed corporate influence on the whole. Men are subject to marketing forces, but they are less predicated on their being men to me. You like football? Cool, if not, there's probably something else we can sell you. Whereas with women things like makeup are pseudo obligatory and come with the territory of being a woman, to not indulge in such products is something passremarkable.
In a way I'm lucky, being a white male I am pretty much the only kind of person who gets judged as an individual group, rather than as part of a larger collective that I may or may not identify with. As somebody who would be extremely pissed off with the latter, I can understand the frustration of womenfolk in that sense.
|
Northern Ireland25000 Posts
On November 19 2013 10:09 Xiphos wrote:
Women are better at some things while men are better at others.
Its a synergic system we have crafted long ago.
You can't be awesome at everything, there must be tradeoff.
/close thread.
Seriously you guys are writing paragraph long essay when everything is just so simple that it hurts.
What are women better at, and men better at, inherently?
|
On November 19 2013 10:53 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 10:09 Xiphos wrote:
Women are better at some things while men are better at others.
Its a synergic system we have crafted long ago.
You can't be awesome at everything, there must be tradeoff.
/close thread.
Seriously you guys are writing paragraph long essay when everything is just so simple that it hurts. What are women better at, and men better at, inherently?
Men are naturally physically stronger on average.
Everything else could be social constructs as far as I know.
Some people argue that we're intellectually exactly the same in every way and it's society that shapes us to be the way we are. As far as I can tell, that would be a curious and incredible coincidence. There probably are some potentially marginal and irrelevant differences on average where one sex is better than the other - yet there's no real way to test for it until we raise hundreds if not thousands children in a controlled environment for the sake of testing their cognitive capacities over the course of their life...
Meh! It's just that whole nature vs. nurture debate that we'll never get rid off. The thing is especially annoying to discuss because you have die hard supporters of both sides who refuse to understand that different people have different innate faculties AND their environment shapes them also.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
