This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Australia has their first female Prime Minister, and people are celebrating. Should they be?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Heckler
It is a step towards gender parity, technically speaking. The previous PM was a woman, if the next PM is a man, is that not parity? At what point would you consider it parity, from a practical perspective, in such a way that electing a man is smileworthy? (And back patting worthy, no less.) And at what point should we no longer be bothered smiling or back patting?
If that were the source of the smile, I wouldn't have a problem with it. (I did say that
might
be politically incorrect, just as a celebration of a female PM for the wrong reasons may also be incorrect).
Post by
Squishalot
Maybe my edit clarified what appeared to be a double standard... and I specifically avoided the phrase 'politically incorrect' in my first statement. I said 'negative' -- there's a big difference there.
If my 3rd statement still constitutes a double standard, then I would qualify it by saying that the motivating point behind the standard is a representative proportion of males to females in politics as in population. Applying that standard to men and women individually makes it appear as a double standard because the current proportion is male-heavy, and therefore a push for equality is obviously going to appear to favor females.
Why are you pushing for equality in numbers? Again, I call that sexist. You're forcing men and women to be equal in an arena where you have no evidence that they should be equal.
As representatives, there's some justification in forcing numbers to be proportional to that of the population, no?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Maybe my edit clarified what appeared to be a double standard... and I specifically avoided the phrase 'politically incorrect' in my first statement. I said 'negative' -- there's a big difference there.
If my 3rd statement still constitutes a double standard, then I would qualify it by saying that the motivating point behind the standard is a representative proportion of males to females in politics as in population. Applying that standard to men and women individually makes it appear as a double standard because the current proportion is male-heavy, and therefore a push for equality is obviously going to appear to favor females.
Why are you pushing for equality in numbers? Again, I call that sexist. You're forcing men and women to be equal in an arena where you have no evidence that they should be equal.
As representatives, there's some justification in forcing numbers to be proportional to that of the population, no?
Do you know for a fact that equal numbers of men a women want to lead a given country? DO you know for a fact that equal numbers of men and women are qualified to lead a given country? Do you know for a fact that women lead any differently than men?
Until you know these things, you can't make claims that men and women are equal politically. I'm not saying one is better than the other. I'm saying you can't make any claims.
Post by
Heckler
Why are you pushing for equality in numbers? Again, I call that sexist. You're forcing men and women to be equal in an arena where you have no evidence that they should be equal.
This is a much fairer question, and one I would have a harder time justifying my position. Here's an analogous attempt:
I look at a coin, it looks 'fair.' I flip the coin 3 times, it comes up heads every time. I inspect the coin looking for reasons it might favor 'heads' over 'tails' -- I find nothing. I flip it two more times, both heads again. I start to think it's not actually 'fair' and continue to search for reasons. I flip it 50,000 more times and it comes out about 50/50 and I'm satisfied that it's fair.
My point is, while you're acting like I should have to prove that numerical equality is 'proper' -- I think that numerical equality should be the baseline assumption and any deviation from that needs proof. Maybe this is flawed, but when I pick up a quarter, I don't assume it's rigged and try to prove it's fair... if anything I do the opposite. I see no apparent difference in the genders (biologically, physically, etc) that would make me think that a 80/20 split in Congress is the way it 'should' be.
Again however, I acknowledge your point, and will admit I may be wrong.
Post by
Squishalot
If that were the source of the smile, I wouldn't have a problem with it. (I did say that
might
be politically incorrect, just as a celebration of a female PM for the wrong reasons may also be incorrect).
So, when Julia Gillard loses the next election / leadership spill (as is entirely likely with the Labor party), would it be entirely reasonable for all those who accuse me of being sexist, because I'm smiling, of being sexist themselves for assuming that I'm being sexist?
In light of this... I'm still not seeing a point of celebrating. Laihendi's argument is still fairly accurate in this case - society is celebrating because society is sexist.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Why are you pushing for equality in numbers? Again, I call that sexist. You're forcing men and women to be equal in an arena where you have no evidence that they should be equal.
This is a much fairer question, and one I would have a harder time justifying my position. Here's an analogous attempt:
I look at a coin, it looks 'fair.' I flip the coin 3 times, it comes up heads every time. I inspect the coin looking for reasons it might favor 'heads' over 'tails' -- I find nothing. I flip it two more times, both heads again. I start to think it's not actually 'fair' and continue to search for reasons. I flip it 50,000 more times and it comes out about 50/50 and I'm satisfied that it's fair.
My point is, while you're acting like I should have to prove that numerical equality is 'proper' -- I think that numerical equality should be the baseline assumption and any deviation from that needs proof. Maybe this is flawed, but when I pick up a quarter, I don't assume it's rigged and try to prove it's fair... if anything I do the opposite. I see no apparent difference in the genders (biologically, physically, etc) that would make me think that a 80/20 split in Congress is the way it 'should' be.
Again however, I acknowledge your point, and will admit I may be wrong.
But that's all based off the assumption that men and women are equal. You know that a penny has a 50% to land on tails, so you suspect something. You don't know that that men and women are equally prone to wanting to run for office. You don't know that men and women are equally qualified to run a country. Etc.
Post by
Heckler
So, when Julia Gillard loses the next election / leadership spill (as is entirely likely with the Labor party), would it be entirely reasonable for all those who accuse me of being sexist, because I'm smiling, of being sexist themselves for assuming that I'm being sexist?
The accusation would be wrong, since there's no way they can know. It might be fair to conclude they themselves are sexist, but then you're doing the same exact thing they just did to you.
In light of this... I'm still not seeing a point of celebrating. Laihendi's argument is still fairly accurate in this case - society is celebrating because society is sexist.
Fair enough, then don't celebrate =) Because I like the idea of 50/50 splits in things that I can't see a reason for a divergence from 50/50, I would probably smile about it in that regard.
I'm definitely not making any argument defending calling someone a sexist, or saying "if you're not happy about this, you're a sexist" or anything like that. I'm just saying, if people want to celebrate (even if you don't see the point) I don't see anything
wrong
with it, if their reasons are aligned with the things I've been talking about.
But that's all based off the assumption that men and women are equal. You know that a penny has a 50% to land on tails, so you suspect something. You don't know that that men and women are equally prone to wanting to run for office. You don't know that men and women are equally qualified to run a country. Etc.
No, but I don't see any reason to think otherwise, and my starting point in that analysis would be 50/50 because I'm a sunshine and unicorns liberal. You don't really
know
that a penny has a 50/50 chance, but it seems reasonable enough given its construction. Same basic premise.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
No, but I don't see any reason to think otherwise, and my starting point in that analysis would be 50/50 because I'm a sunshine and unicorns liberal.
And I call that sexist.
Post by
Squishalot
As representatives, there's some justification in forcing numbers to be proportional to that of the population, no?
Do you know for a fact that equal numbers of men a women want to lead a given country? DO you know for a fact that equal numbers of men and women are qualified to lead a given country? Do you know for a fact that women lead any differently than men?
Until you know these things, you can't make claims that men and women are equal politically. I'm not saying one is better than the other. I'm saying you can't make any claims.
Where did I claim that they were equal politically? All I was suggesting that it leads to a fair argument that they should be represented equally.
I see no apparent difference in the genders (biologically, physically, etc) that would make me think that a 80/20 split in Congress is the way it 'should' be.
I would look at the people who apply to be in Congress and represent the people. If a significantly similar proportion of men and women get elected into representative positions, then I'd say it's as things 'should' be, and that any difference in the final split is due to the desire to be part of Congress.
Should men be more interested in porn?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
As representatives, there's some justification in forcing numbers to be proportional to that of the population, no?
Do you know for a fact that equal numbers of men a women want to lead a given country? DO you know for a fact that equal numbers of men and women are qualified to lead a given country? Do you know for a fact that women lead any differently than men?
Until you know these things, you can't make claims that men and women are equal politically. I'm not saying one is better than the other. I'm saying you can't make any claims.
Where did I claim that they were equal politically? All I was suggesting that it leads to a fair argument that they should be represented equally.
The population is 50% male, 50% female. That's equal as far as my math system is concerned.
Unless you're suggesting that we give 50% of the seats to women, but only give them jurisdiction over culinary laws or something ;)
(omg sexist joke)
Post by
Heckler
No, but I don't see any reason to think otherwise, and my starting point in that analysis would be 50/50 because I'm a sunshine and unicorns liberal.
And I call that sexist.
That's fine, but I don't really see how. One definition for the word 'sexism' is "the belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to, less competent, or less valuable than the other." By that definition, 50/50 is the
only
split that isn't sexist.
Should men be more interested in porn?
I think there's a semi-straightforward biochemical argument to be made there. Maybe there's one for political savvy too, but I don't know any.
I would look at the people who apply to be in Congress and represent the people. If a significantly similar proportion of men and women get elected into representative positions, then I'd say it's as things 'should' be, and that any difference in the final split is due to the desire to be part of Congress.
I would say it warrants some sort of research into the reasons for the split. If there are cultural pressures that disproportionately push men into or hold women back from seeking public office, maybe that's something the government can make sure it's not encouraging or contributing to in any way.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
No, but I don't see any reason to think otherwise, and my starting point in that analysis would be 50/50 because I'm a sunshine and unicorns liberal.
And I call that sexist.
That's fine, but I don't really see how. One definition for the word 'sexism' is "the belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to, less competent, or less valuable than the other." By that definition, 50/50 is the
only
split that isn't sexist.
Sexism: prejudice or discrimination based on sex.
You're basing something (congressional seats) off of sex (50/50 split) without grounds.
Pretend for a minute that men really are more suited for politics and statistically are more driven towards it than women. Wouldn't it be wrong to divide it 50/50? You're saying men don't have a right to be men (in this particular area).
Post by
382219
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Do you know for a fact that equal numbers of men a women
want to lead
a given country? DO you know for a fact that equal numbers of men and women are
qualified to lead
a given country? Do you know for a fact that women
lead any differently
than men?
Until you know these things, you can't make claims that men and women are equal politically. I'm not saying one is better than the other. I'm saying you can't make any claims.
Where did I claim that they were equal politically? All I was suggesting that it leads to a fair argument that they should be represented equally.
The population is 50% male, 50% female. That's equal as far as my math system is concerned.
Unless you're suggesting that we give 50% of the seats to women, but only give them jurisdiction over culinary laws or something ;)
I thought you were referring to men and women being equal as far as being qualified was concerned (in the 'Sarah Palin is not qualified' perspective). Was that wrong?
One definition for the word 'sexism' is "the belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to, less competent, or less valuable than the other." By that definition, 50/50 is the only split that isn't sexist.
If 20% of one gender is willing to work 20 hour days, and only 5% of the other gender, then a job requiring 20 hour days is likely to be split 80/20 down gender lines. Is that sexist, simply because it's not 50/50? Where do you see willingness falling into this?
Edit:
I would say it warrants some sort of research into the reasons for the split. If there are cultural pressures that disproportionately push men into or hold women back from seeking public office, maybe that's something the government can make sure it's not encouraging or contributing to in any way.
By this argument, I can conclude that politics is ageist. There aren't enough people in their young 20s in politics. This is because most people in politics are culturally required to have degrees and qualifications and experience before being able to contribute. Isn't it enough to have a brain? Perhaps the government should encourage this.
Post by
Heckler
Sexism: prejudice or discrimination based on sex.
Prejudice: "A prejudice is a prejudgment: i.e. a preconceived belief, opinion, or judgment made without ascertaining the facts of a case." -- I think our definitions line up pretty well, anything other than 50/50 would count as a prejudice.
You're basing something (congressional seats) off of sex (50/50 split) without grounds.
The grounds are rooted in the fact that it is a representative body, and the population it represents is split 50/50.
Pretend for a minute that men really are more suited for politics and statistically are more driven towards it than women. Wouldn't it be wrong to divide it 50/50?
I think I can safely say it would be wrong to forcefully divide it 50/50 regardless. But I'm not advocating that, I'm just saying a voluntary step towards 50/50 is a good thing.
You're saying men don't have a right to be men (in this particular area).
Don't you usually get #$%^y when people put words in your mouth? Anyways, I'm not saying men and women have to be identical, just that in instances where I see no reason for preferential selection of one over the other, I think 50/50 is how it should fall, and if it doesn't that is probably indicative of some cultural pressure that I would probably disagree with.
Where do you see willingness falling into this?
Then it becomes a question of
why
. Unless I see some physiological reason for it, I have to assume that it's cultural, which is a whole different question.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Prejudice: "A prejudice is a prejudgment: i.e. a preconceived belief, opinion, or judgment
made without ascertaining the facts of a case
." -- I think our definitions line up pretty well, anything other than 50/50 would count as a prejudice.
You're making a judgment with no facts. I listed three questions, which haven't been answered.
The grounds are rooted in the fact that it is a representative body, and the population it represents is split 50/50.
And that's based off the assumption that men and women govern/represent differently. If men and women are equal in every way, then why does it matter?
Don't you usually get #$%^y when people put words in your mouth? Anyways, I'm not saying men and women have to be identical, just that in instances where I see no reason for preferential selection of one over the other, I think 50/50 is how it should fall, and if it doesn't that is probably indicative of some cultural pressure that I would probably disagree with.
You say it should be 50/50, despite the possibility that one sex might be better suited. Thus you are saying that the sex better suited for it should be held back from do it. I.e. not letting men be men (in that case).
Post by
Squishalot
Prejudice: "A prejudice is a prejudgment: i.e. a preconceived belief, opinion, or judgment made without ascertaining the facts of a case." -- I think our definitions line up pretty well, anything other than 50/50 would count as a prejudice.
Prejudging that 50/50 is ideal, without ascertaining the facts of a case, is also prejudice, and therefore sexist. This is Hyper's point.
Anyway, I'm off for now - logging out of the office. Catch you guys soon.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I thought you were referring to men and women being equal as far as being qualified was concerned (in the 'Sarah Palin is not qualified' perspective). Was that wrong?
No, I was using "politically equal" to refer to them being given numerical equality. WHich is what's being argued.
Anyway, I'm off for now - logging out of the office. Catch you guys soon.
I'll probably be going to be soon, anyways.
Post by
Heckler
I listed three questions, which haven't been answered.
I honestly can't find these.
And that's based off the assumption that men and women govern/represent differently. If men and women are equal in every way, then why does it matter?
I never said men and women are equal in every way, I'm not sure where that comes from. I just said in areas where I can't see a reason for non-equality, I think a 50/50 split is 'right.' Has nothing to do with how they would govern or anything, it's just a question of representation in subsections of the population versus the entire population. I'm not making any sort of statement about men and women being identical.
You say it should be 50/50, dispute the possibility that one sex might be better suited. Thus you are saying that the sex better suited for it should be held back from do it. I.e. not letting me be men (in that case).
I don't really care how you came to the conclusion that I'm saying "men can't be men" -- I'm just pointing out that it's hypocritical for you to do that, regardless of your justification, because I didn't actually say that.
Prejudging that 50/50 is ideal, without ascertaining the facts of a case, is also prejudice, and therefore sexist. This is Hyper's point.
I know this, but what can I do except disagree? The whole reason 'sexism' is a word is because of gender
equality
discussions. 50/50 is the natural state of something that has an -ism associated with it.
Also, I'm going to quote myself with something you didn't respond to, and maybe missed?
Pretend for a minute that men really are more suited for politics and statistically are more driven towards it than women. Wouldn't it be wrong to divide it 50/50?
I think I can safely say
it would be wrong to forcefully divide it 50/50
regardless. But I'm not advocating that, I'm just saying a voluntary step towards 50/50 is a good thing.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Do you know for a fact that equal numbers of men a women want to lead a given country? DO you know for a fact that equal numbers of men and women are qualified to lead a given country? Do you know for a fact that women lead any differently than men?
I never said men and women are equal in every way, I'm not sure where that comes from. I just said in areas where I can't see a reason for non-equality, I think a 50/50 split is 'right.' Has nothing to do with how they would govern or anything, it's just a question of representation in subsections of the population versus the entire population. I'm not making any sort of statement about men and women being identical.
So, then why are you so quick to keep dismissing that one could be better suited for politics than the other?
Either their equal in every way, or they aren't.
I don't really care how you came to the conclusion that I'm saying "men can't be men" -- I'm just pointing out that it's hypocritical for you to do that, regardless of your justification, because I didn't actually say that.
There is a difference between "you said" and "you are saying."
The first is a quote, the second is an extrapolation.
You say 2 and you say 5...I just put them together and get 7.
Given what you've presented, you'd have to agree with what I labeled as "you are saying."
I know this, but what can I do except disagree? The whole reason 'sexism' is a word is because of gender equality discussions. 50/50 is the natural state of something that has an -ism associated with it.
What makes 50/50 so great? 8% of the human race is left-handed? Should we get 50 southpaws in Congress? 50% is just and arbitrary number. It looks pretty because it's right in the middle, but that doesn't make it any less arbitrary.
Also, I'm going to quote myself with something you didn't respond to, and maybe missed?
Pretend for a minute that men really are more suited for politics and statistically are more driven towards it than women. Wouldn't it be wrong to divide it 50/50?
I think I can safely say
it would be wrong to forcefully divide it 50/50
regardless. But I'm not advocating that, I'm just saying a voluntary step towards 50/50 is a good thing.
I didn't respond, because the means are arbitrary to my point. It's the end that matters...how things
should
be.
Bed.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.