Why isn't there a 50% female quota in politics?

[Enros]

It's not the governments that keep women away of seats of political power by oppression. It's the lack of interest by the majority of women to run for office. As simple as that. Go to a party rally. You'll see 70% or so men.

Former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard (a woman) argues there is extreme sexism against women in politics. What do you know about politics that she doesn't?

As Shuu said, a society that strives towards equality shouldn't introduce systemic inequalities such as gender quotas.

Conservatives haven't cared about sexism for the last 200 years. Why do they care now? Oh, because they think the victim is men all of a sudden. Because they only care about men.

Let me just say I have never heard you or Shuu arguing against misogyny. Why do you suddenly care about sexism now? Are you a little biased?

Giving different groups inside the nation special privileges at the expense of everyone else is how special interest groups take over, at the general public's expense, all while turning the nation harder to govern effectively. Quotas are first and foremost a special privilege that tends to create more problems then it solves.

I'm not sure how Isreal is run. According to Wikipedia it is simple elections. But lots of countries have lawmakers who are appointed by groups with special privileges. Labour unions, religious organizations, industry associations, even parts of the civil service. Heck, President Bush won the 2000 election despite his opponent getting more votes. I say that noone who supports those things can oppose female gender quotas.

[Maiar93]

So what has women being treated worse in politics to do with enforcing quotas? How about you make your brain get off its lazy ass. Because proposing enforced gender quotas as prophylaxis to misogyny is simply lazy thinking.

Conservatives haven't cared about sexism for the last 200 years. Why do they care now? Oh, because they think the victim is men all of a sudden. Because they only care about men.

Let me just say I have never heard you or Shuu arguing against misogyny. Why do you suddenly care about sexism now? Are you a little biased?

please. Conservative? Judging from what you've chosen to show of your beliefs and opinions, I'm three times the liberal humanist that you pose to be.

Oh, I can and will argue against misogyny - when I see it happening. Misogyny is hatred of women. Not enforcing an irrational, wool-headed fiasco of a gender quota is quite far from hating on women.

Let's say that this gender quota happened. What would be different? In general, female candidates probably hold rather similar beliefs as male candidates... they're part of the same parties after all. So what would this accomplish? Let me tell you, this quota would only make it impossible for the people to decide who gets to hold half the offices. To propose a gender quota is to wish for the death of democracy, sorry to say.

[Caligula's_Horse]

I'm not sure how Isreal is run. According to Wikipedia it is simple elections. But lots of countries have lawmakers who are appointed by groups with special privileges. Labour unions, religious organizations, industry associations, even parts of the civil service. Heck, President Bush won the 2000 election despite his opponent getting more votes. I say that noone who supports those things can oppose female gender quotas.

I don't support any of those things. A lot of the democratic systems we have around the world are screwed up in various ways, mostly through loopholes that allow either local representatives or special interest groups to have a lot more sway then their actual share of the population. The American system is particularly screwed up, mostly because it was the first of its kind and made a lot of mistakes we know to avoid today when building democracies, like the electoral college, and not having some fundamental law against gerrymandering.
Its like saying that legalizing marijuana is okay because tobacco is both legal and worse; regardless of the actual merits of either plant (there's a different thread for that) that's not an argument for marijuana, its against tobacco. Just because something worse has grandfather-claused its way in doesn't mean anything that's not as bad is automatically a good idea.

I can live with a quota so long as its low, to a point any party that isn't ideologically opposed to women in its ranks will go over it without really trying (and in that case, a quota is actually a useful tool to hurt those types of parties). Something like 5-10% is plenty; if the voters want more women in politics, they should do it by voting accordingly, not having it forced upon them.
And again, after you give a special quota to women, how long until homosexuals, religious groups, ethnic minorities and other groups want their special quota privilege?

[gaunty14]

So what has women being treated worse in politics to do with enforcing quotas? How about you make your brain get off its lazy ass. Because proposing enforced gender quotas as prophylaxis to misogyny is simply lazy thinking.

please. Conservative? Judging from what you've chosen to show of your beliefs and opinions, I'm three times the liberal humanist that you pose to be.

Oh, I can and will argue against misogyny - when I see it happening. Misogyny is hatred of women. Not enforcing an irrational, wool-headed fiasco of a gender quota is quite far from hating on women.

Let's say that this gender quota happened. What would be different? In general, female candidates probably hold rather similar beliefs as male candidates... they're part of the same parties after all. So what would this accomplish? Let me tell you, this quota would only make it impossible for the people to decide who gets to hold half the offices. To propose a gender quota is to wish for the death of democracy, sorry to say.

Also in the UK, it was a under a Conservative government where women recieved the same full votal rights of men, previously it was a coalition governemnt of Conservative/Labur bought in the "Representation of the People Act (1918) that allowed some women to vote.

During the height of womens suffrage (Edwardian era, 1900-914) it was a liberal government that refused to grant universal suffrage not a conservative one. Please try to remember details like this before spouting generalised nonsense of "200 years".

[Phier]

As a graduate level educated white atheist male, in the 1%, I will accept only those with equal qualifications, race, and sex to represent me politically.

Nice thing is I think the group will be small enough we can just work this all out on skype.

[Enros]

Also in the UK, it was a under a Conservative government where women recieved the same full votal rights of men, previously it was a coalition governemnt of Conservative/Labur bought in the "Representation of the People Act (1918) that allowed some women to vote.

During the height of womens suffrage (Edwardian era, 1900-914) it was a liberal government that refused to grant universal suffrage not a conservative one. Please try to remember details like this before spouting generalised nonsense of "200 years".

You mean Parliament allowed women's suffrage while the Conservatives happened to be in government. Gay marriage was also brought in during Conservative government after the preceeding Labour government had not brought it in. But in both cases a higher proportion of conservative MPs opposed these things than MPs from the party across the chamber.

84.5% of Labour MPs and 80.5% of Liberal Democrat MPs supported gay marriage, while only 42% of Conservative MPs supported gay marriage.

Both the 1918 and 1928 representation of the people acts recieved most opposition from the Conservative party. Similarly, the figurehead opponents of women suffrage were conservative Lords, while John Stuart Mill was from the Liberal party and George Lansbury from the Labour party.

I will say that unlike American Republicans who are worse for the economy than Democrats, we can scientifically measure that the economy has grown more during Conservative dominated governments than Labour ones.

[gaunty14]

Touche on that one. *dips hat.

[DimeBagHo]

California's represenstatives get to make laws affecting the entire USA. Why shouldn't women's representatives?

Do you think that no one outside California is entitled to express an opinion about who gets elected in California?

[alhoon]

Former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard (a woman) argues there is extreme sexism against women in politics. What do you know about politics that she doesn't?

That there's no law in Australia that prohibits women from participating in all levels of government, even as prime ministers, since that nice lady that argues about the sexism was a prime minister.

Also, I read the article.
"Still, somewhere in our brains, is whispering a stereotype that says if a woman is leading, commanding, she has probably given up on ‘female’ traits of empathy, likeability; she’s probably a bit hard boiled." is not extreme sexism against women.
Extreme sexism against women is to imprison women (or behead) women that asked for women's right to vote like it happened in the French revolution.

Thinking that a woman in politics has given up on female traits, is indeed sexism but it doesn't stop a woman from getting elected; It's a minor hindrance to her political career that can't be addressed by enforcing gender quotas since these would make LEGAL the divide in politics between a man and a woman.
And nowhere in the article you posted that woman prime minister suggested it was a terrible problem that would cripple most women's career in politics.

To surmise and answer

What do you know about politics that she doesn't?

She doesn't say there's extreme sexism against women. Her case, a woman that became a prime minister without any real obstructions except of a having to deal with a few sexist slogans against her, doesn't support your arguments.

[Mangalore]

Doesn't this sort of thinking strike anyone as authoritarian?

As Shuu said, a society that strives towards equality shouldn't introduce systemic inequalities such as gender quotas.

Interestingly this argument doesn't work since said systemic inequality statisically doesn't exist when you set it up based on demographics. It's no worse than deciding to distribute state seats based on population. And weighting state seats so smaller states have bigger votes is used as an undemocratic counterweight in most democracies to counter tyranny of the majority so you already have systemic inequalities that are not equal to demographics.

That said the issue is whether a democratically elected parliament makes sense for a well balanced parliament representing a population which is what such quota systems try to enhance. I think there are studies that say the most equal parliament would be one based on the Greek sortition by just selecting randomly by chance from the eligible population. This would remove any skewing by political power structures and if the number of selected PMs is big enough create a good representation of the overall population.

To some extent I wonder if that would not be the best next step concerning postmodern democracy. Not sure though.

[Sir Adrian]

Yes but can you really compare giving tiny communities a voice to giving somebody a seat in parliament based on their birth rather than competence or policy. I thought we passed that stage after 1848.

Moreover the athenian system transformed into a full fledged oligarchy after a mere 75 years and ended up with the entire city welcoming a tyrant with open arms just to be rid of ti, and that was a city of about 50k people. A similar system wouldn't last a decade if applied to a modern nation. What really needs to be done is to work on the civic spirit of all generations - something which is non-existent in all democracies so that the current system can be applied properly. Looking a failed systems of the past or hate fueled ideologies such as modern feminism will not work.

[Copperknickers II]

All of the political parties in my country have agreed to field at least 30% female candidates in the next election. I think this is not enough, and that they should field 50% female candidates.

The counter arguments are usually about merit and getting to the best person for the job. It's fine to talk about merit when chosing a heart surgeon. But we all know politicians are not elected based on their merits.

What on earth is that supposed to mean? A bad politician can do just as much damage as a bad heart surgeon, and a good politician can be a life saver.

I view representing women in politics the same as representing areas of the country in politics. California has 12% of the USA's population, so it gets 12% of the representatives. How can Californians trust people from outside California to understand their problems? If women are 50% of the population, they should get 50% of the representatives. How can they trust someone who has no idea what it is like to be a woman to look out for their interests?

That argument taken to its logical conclusion would mean racial quotas, employment industry quotas, income quotas, sexuality quotas... you might as well not have democracy, just a system that randomly selects a man and a woman from each of your 117 quota demographics.

[Enros]

And again, after you give a special quota to women, how long until homosexuals, religious groups, ethnic minorities and other groups want their special quota privilege?

That argument taken to its logical conclusion would mean racial quotas, employment industry quotas, income quotas, sexuality quotas... you might as well not have democracy, just a system that randomly selects a man and a woman from each of your 117 quota demographics.

This isn't an argument you should be taking to its logical conclusion. I don't aspire to live in country with gender quotas. I don't think an ideal society would have them.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women reccomends gender quotas as a temporary band aid to put on our sexist society for a period of 2-4 elections before they are abolished. There is significant evidence that temporary quotas can lead to permanent increases in female representation even after they are removed. They create a bunch of experienced female politicians.

That there's no law in Australia that prohibits women from participating in all levels of government, even as prime ministers, since that nice lady that argues about the sexism was a prime minister.

I don't claim the sexism is overt. But the fact that 50% of politicians and Prime Ministers are not women is evidence of sexism.

If our society raises women with preferences that make them weak (not wanting to be involved in politics, science etc) then our society is sexist.

[alhoon]

I don't claim the sexism is overt. But the fact that 50% of politicians and Prime Ministers are not women is evidence of sexism.

No, it's not. It's evidence that women don't care to become politicians and prime ministers as much as men although the few that chose it good\bad (Thatcher, Merkel, that Austrial PM, Clinton, Palin) have to face a little more difficulty than men.

Compare now the problems a man\woman of median income has to overcome in order to become an important politician with the problems a woman from a rich and powerful family has to overcome.

You'll see that the problems and restrictions are worse for the non-rich. And the non-rich are 80% of us, and boy, are we under-represented in all the world's governments?
Even the remaining communist states have the scions of the elite as a ruling class. And while I admit I don't understand how tampon tax is an important issue, I do understand that the vast majority of politicians didn't really have to worry if they could afford to feed their kids the next month unlike their voters.

So, since you're not demanding parties to fill their ministries with middle-income and low-income politicians, that would know the problems of their people etc etc I really don't see how you find the lack gender quotas problematic.

[Dragus]

Quotas are usually seen as rather impractical in democracies. A possibly more-interesting topic to some would be mandatory voting. I would most likely not support this either, but it is still an interesting discussion.

[alhoon]

I am all for mandatory voting but what this has to do with women under-representation in the leading positions of Western democracies?

[Derpy Hooves]

All of the political parties in my country have agreed to field at least 30% female candidates in the next election. I think this is not enough, and that they should field 50% female candidates.

The counter arguments are usually about merit and getting to the best person for the job. It's fine to talk about merit when chosing a heart surgeon. But we all know politicians are not elected based on their merits.

I view representing women in politics the same as representing areas of the country in politics. California has 12% of the USA's population, so it gets 12% of the representatives. How can Californians trust people from outside California to understand their problems? If women are 50% of the population, they should get 50% of the representatives. How can they trust someone who has no idea what it is like to be a woman to look out for their interests?

Because in the US we choose who represents us. Not which party. We choose an individual. So yeah, we do vote on their merits. If women aren't as interested in politics as men, then why should Congressional district A be forced to choose between two women candidates that were clearly chosen just for women representation, and thus are not nearly as qualified in the eyes of Congressional district A, than the two candidates who would have ran for election if there were not asinine requirements.
You don't represent demographics, you represent your locality.

[classical_hero]

Women make up over half the population and if they wanted to they could easily vote just a for a woman, but they don't.

[Himster]

But the fact that 50% of politicians and Prime Ministers are not women is evidence of sexism.

On the flip side that same statistical anomaly could be used as evidence for the incompetence of women as politicians.
Post oc ergo propert hoc: correlation doesn't imply causation, it self-evidently doesn't imply it when sexists use it and it equally doesn't imply it when it's used by anyone else.

If our society raises women with preferences that make them weak (not wanting to be involved in politics, science etc) then our society is sexist.

So the solution to this is to force individuals against their will and aptitude to take on roles individually they are neither willing nor fully capable of fulfilling? Is that empowering or incredibly condescending and extremely anti-meritocratic?
The solution can only lie in education, from as early as possible.

There is significant evidence that temporary quotas can lead to permanent increases in female representation even after they are removed.

So results justify the methods? Utter horse . You can "justify" any number of monstrous deeds with such methods. Meritocracy is not a token to be taken so lightly as to be so easily thrown away for an easy and half arsed non-solution to a complex and difficult issue.

[Enros]

It's evidence that women don't care to become politicians and prime ministers as much as men

Evidence of sexism. I don't think you understand. I (and a lot of other people) consider the the fact that there aren't more women politicians and scientists aren't more male teachers and secretaries societal sexism. These preferences are cultural and not innate. They are from a sexist culture.

On the flip side that same statistical anomaly could be used as evidence for the incompetence of women as politicians.

So the solution to this is to force individuals against their will and aptitude to take on roles individually they are neither willing nor fully capable of fulfilling? Is that empowering or incredibly condescending and extremely anti-meritocratic?

The solution is temporary gender quotas. Quotas don't force anyone to become a politician.

So results justify the methods? Utter horse . You can "justify" any number of monstrous deeds with such methods. Meritocracy is not a token to be taken so lightly as to be so easily thrown away for an easy and half arsed non-solution to a complex and difficult issue.

Politicians aren't elected based on their merits. They're elected based on how well the fake persona they affect matches the preferences of the idiots of society.

That our society is sexist is way more monsterous than gender quotas. What is your solution? Oh, that's right, accept it.