Maybe they just aren't into political jobs as much as men?
We also need to take into account choice. No female that I know of is being told 'you can't be prime minister because you're female.' There is nothing stopping me from striving to become prime minister; I simply don't want to. Remember, 50-50 levels of male and female in all jobs is not something we should strive for. What we should encourage people to do is do what they enjoy, and if more males happen to be in positions of government, so be it. We can't force women to do jobs they don't want to do for the sake of 'equality'.Yeah except our choices aren't made in a vacuum. They are a byproduct of our lives.
There's nothing indicating that females are inherently discriminated against in politics. Maybe they just aren't into political jobs as much as men?Do you think that's actually the case, or would it be more true to say that "I haven't read, seen, or heard anything to indicate that females are inherently discriminated against in politics"? Here's a link to something pretty recent that's surely popping up on newsfeeds everywhere. I mean, that's at least one thing that's gives an indication that there might be some fundamental discrimination against women in politics so... surely it's wrong to say there's NOTHING indication that. I mean... Literally zero things is a big call. I'm not saying there's necessarily concrete facts about it but... I'm saying there's definitely at least a non-zero amount of indications....... lol.
You can't force women to do jobs they don't like just for the sake of making 1:1 ratio of males to females in any job. In fact, it could be considered sexist as you are favouring less qualified females over more qualified males for the sake of 'equality'.
Have you taken a step back and wondered why women aren't as interested in political jobs? There may not be any structural barriers but the toxic culture in politics (starting from student politics level, where many politicians from), inherent sexism (eg. Julia Gillard) and general attitude that women aren't fit to tackle issues regarding the economy and international relationships, discourage women from pursuing politics.Yes.
I can't see anything suggesting that Australia's political system is inherently favouring females. The article about the university's club doesn't indicate anything about Australia's political system itself, just personal sexism.Exactly! Australia's political system - call it a constitutional monarchy, a representative democracy, a bicameral system of parliament... none of this is structurally against women. To clarify, that's not the claim in the OP - the claim is that the issue comes from society, not the structure of our political system. Sorry if I misinterpreted you the first time :)
The fact of the matter is that women in politics is going to always be lower than men simply because women aren't as interested in it as men.Always going to be lower? Why is that? Because they have a uterus, or lack a penis? If this is scientifically the case, I would like anyone making this claim for the rest of this thread to provide well constructed scientific literature providing empirical evidence to support the idea that women will always not want to be in politics, because they are women. If anyone could provide a meta-analysis or two, that would be great. Even a small collection of recent articles from a reputable scientific journal would do. Surely, 'always' needs some evidence.
I agree that Julia Gillard had to put up with snide, 'gendered' remarks that no male PMs were forced to endure. However, this does not detract from my criticisms of her (namely that she ran a dysfunctional government with record-low approval ratings). Sure, she faced difficult circumstances (a hung parliament and the ghost of K Rudd), but ultimately she just couldn't govern effectively imho.
The article about the university's club doesn't indicate anything about Australia's political system itself, just personal sexism. The fact of the matter is that women in politics is going to always be lower than men simply because women aren't as interested in it as men. So the numbers in OP does not suggest anything in my opinion. The only way to boost numbers to have a 50-50 is either by forcing them (bad idea as already mentioned) or providing greater incentives for women to join a certain field ( such as engineering) which I disagree with as it is sexist since less qualified women are given places over more qualified men for the sake of equality.
It seems to be the case that 'sexism' against female politicians is often used to explain away their failings to a large extent. This was the case with Gillard, as well as Hillary Clinton. However, this analysis is seldom applied to politicians of the Right. The fact that Marine Le Pen would have been the first female president of France barely rated a mention during the French campaign (unlike Clinton's, in which you couldn't escape hearing slogans like 'I'm with her'). Additionally, Pauline Hanson has been similarly attacked in a sexist manner (was originally named the 'witch from Ipswich'), yet this is seemingly glossed over in the prevailing political/media discourse in Australia. To my mind, feminists need to be more consistent when discussing issues pertaining to gender equality. Whether they are actually fond of the female politicians in question should be irrelevant.
Yeah except our choices aren't made in a vacuum. They are a byproduct of our lives.
Some women in other parts of the world might want to have their genitals mutilated and actively make that choice. If then we see a [hypothetical] society where 55% of the women have experienced FGM, and did so of their own volition, we don't turn around and say "this is not a sexist situation, and there is nothing wrong here, because this resultant society has been created by choice!"
Everything comes down to choice, but the fact remains that people make choices for a reason. Even if it's true that women aren't going into politics out of pure 'choice', that doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with the situation. We need to be asking ourselves why so many men are making that choice, and so many women aren't.
There are also significant factors other than choice, but even if choice were the only factor... we'd still have a problem.
society discourages women from a very early age from aspiring to certain fields and undoing that would do wonders.
okay but hillary clinton literally lost the american presidency to a misogynistic, homophobic racist
Yeah but there's a bit of a diffeerence between female genital mutilation and less women being in gov. jobs than men. FGM is obviously evil and we can see that; but women having less jobs that men in the government isn't as severe. And, frankly, it's horrible to equate or even compare the two, as FGM is mutilation of someone without any good reason, while men having more gov. jobs than woman could be due to a number of reasons, particularly choice. You're not mutilating someone by deciding that as a woman you don't want to be a politician.
Because instinctually and innately, women prefer more maternal jobs compared to men. This is evolutionarily true; females, not just in the human species, are the ones who usually care for the children. This is not something we nor other animals learnt to do - it is instinctual. Therefore, females would much rather prefer a maternal job.
As a female I would love to care for my own children when I'm older and would be happy to cook and clean around the house - this is something I have decided, and no one has told me that as a woman, this is what I should be doing. It's something I know I would enjoy.
In my household, both my parents cook the food and take care of the children, so I've certainly been raised in a very 'equal' family. Therefore my upbringing has certainly not influenced me at all. I, like men, have a choice, as to whether or not I want to go into politics, or whether I prefer doing a job at all, or whether I would prefer being a stay at home mum and raising children. I personally would prefer to work because I want to be a doctor and I wouldn't feel right not pulling my own weight around the house - but being a stay at home mum isn't a bad thing. My mum is a stay at home mum and chose to do so. She has a Masters in Botany and could easily have gotten a job but she didn't want to leave her children at home while my dad and her went off to work. So, it was of her own choice that she decided not to work. No one told her that because she's a woman, she can't get a job. She simply decided to. No oppression here. In fact, she loves it and I recently asked her, would you have rather worked? And she said, no, I wouldn't change it for the world, because raising children is the most rewarding thing she could ever do.
And...what would be that problem? I don't see anyone complaining that there aren't enough males in nursing, or that there aren't enough men in early education (97% women, by the way).
Like very, very many female politicians, she suffered from the "double bind": if she had kids, she'd be construed as uncommitted to her profession; if she didn't, she'd be construed as too ambitious and career-driven.I agree with this.
Because instinctually and innately, women prefer more maternal jobs compared to men. This is evolutionarily true; females, not just in the human species, are the ones who usually care for the children. This is not something we nor other animals learnt to do - it is instinctual. Therefore, females would much rather prefer a maternal job.Nup, I don't buy it. I think to suggest that just because females are "instinctually maternal" they are more inclined to prefer maternal jobs is a massive generalisation and oversimplification of the deeply interconnected role of nature and nurture. Today especially, so many women are choosing not to have children - whether that be for career reasons, or because they really just don't want to. "The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates between 2023 and 2029, there will be more people in a relationship living without children than families with kids."(Source. This suggests that females may in fact not be "instinctually maternal" but instead that the level of social conditioning in recent years, which conflates womanhood with motherhood, has decreased.
As a female I would love to care for my own children when I'm older and would be happy to cook and clean around the house - this is something I have decided, and no one has told me that as a woman, this is what I should be doing.
And...what would be that problem? I don't see anyone complaining that there aren't enough males in nursing, or that there aren't enough men in early education (97% women, by the way).
Because instinctually and innately, women prefer more maternal jobs compared to men.What is the definition of a maternal job? One where you care for people? I think a lot of people get into politics because they care for humanity, and they want to help improve our society for everyone and improve the lives of everyone around them. If there are such things as "maternal jobs", I don't see how politics doesn't come under this classification. Women dominate fields like marketing, accounting, law, veterinary science, administration, tax agents, and plenty more. Why didn't those women choose nursing or early learning if they so strongly prefer maternal jobs?
This is evolutionarily true; females, not just in the human species, are the ones who usually care for the children. This is not something we nor other animals learnt to do - it is instinctual. Therefore, females would much rather prefer a maternal job.Woah woah woah. Hold up a second - even if your first claim is true, the conclusion does not follow from that claim. It's a huge leap to go from "females in our species usually care for the children" to then "females would prefer a maternal job". Firstly, you can't make a logical jump from habit to preference. They might correlate but it is logically incorrect to say that "Brenden usually wakes up at around 7am, therefore he prefers to work in the morning". Not true. I wake up at 7am because I have to in order to keep my job. I prefer to work in the night.
an innate, typically fixed pattern of behaviour in animals in response to certain stimuli.
As a female I would love to care for my own children when I'm older and would be happy to cook and clean around the house - this is something I have decided, and no one has told me that as a woman, this is what I should be doing. It's something I know I would enjoy.Okay. Whilst I'm glad it sounds like you have fantastic parents and a great mum, that story featured a sample size of 2, against a population of like, ~12million in Australia, and 3.5billion in the world. Your preferences and the preferences of your mum have literally zero impact on the discussion of whether or not women are inherently wired a particular way.
In my household, both my parents cook the food and take care of the children, so I've certainly been raised in a very 'equal' family. Therefore my upbringing has certainly not influenced me at all. I, like men, have a choice, as to whether or not I want to go into politics, or whether I prefer doing a job at all, or whether I would prefer being a stay at home mum and raising children. I personally would prefer to work because I want to be a doctor and I wouldn't feel right not pulling my own weight around the house - but being a stay at home mum isn't a bad thing. My mum is a stay at home mum and chose to do so. She has a Masters in Botany and could easily have gotten a job but she didn't want to leave her children at home while my dad and her went off to work. So, it was of her own choice that she decided not to work. No one told her that because she's a woman, she can't get a job. She simply decided to. No oppression here. In fact, she loves it and I recently asked her, would you have rather worked? And she said, no, I wouldn't change it for the world, because raising children is the most rewarding thing she could ever do.
And...what would be that problem? I don't see anyone complaining that there aren't enough males in nursing, or that there aren't enough men in early education (97% women, by the way).
our choices aren't made in a vacuum. They are a byproduct of our lives.
Some women in other parts of the world might want to have their genitals mutilated and actively make that choice. If then we see a [hypothetical] society where 55% of the women have experienced FGM, and did so of their own volition, we don't turn around and say "this is not a sexist situation, and there is nothing wrong here, because this resultant society has been created by choice!"
Everything comes down to choice, but the fact remains that people make choices for a reason. Even if it's true that women aren't going into politics out of pure 'choice', that doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with the situation. We need to be asking ourselves why so many men are making that choice, and so many women aren't.
Imo, it says pretty plainly that sexism still exists in a pretty large way in our society.
We also need to take into account choice. No female that I know of is being told 'you can't be prime minister because you're female.' There is nothing stopping me from striving to become prime minister; I simply don't want to. Remember, 50-50 levels of male and female in all jobs is not something we should strive for. What we should encourage people to do is do what they enjoy, and if more males happen to be in positions of government, so be it. We can't force women to do jobs they don't want to do for the sake of 'equality'.
There's nothing indicating that females are inherently discriminated against in politics. Maybe they just aren't into political jobs as much as men?
You can't force women to do jobs they don't like just for the sake of making 1:1 ratio of males to females in any job. In fact, it could be considered sexist as you are favouring less qualified females over more qualified males for the sake of 'equality'.
Have you taken a step back and wondered why women aren't as interested in political jobs? There may not be any structural barriers but the toxic culture in politics (starting from student politics level, where many politicians from), inherent sexism (eg. Julia Gillard) and general attitude that women aren't fit to tackle issues regarding the economy and international relationships, discourage women from pursuing politics.
Well what I'm saying is that if you take personal prejudices aside, which can be apparent in any job, I can't see anything suggesting that Australia's political system is inherently favouring females. The article about the university's club doesn't indicate anything about Australia's political system itself, just personal sexism. The fact of the matter is that women in politics is going to always be lower than men simply because women aren't as interested in it as men. So the numbers in OP does not suggest anything in my opinion. The only way to boost numbers to have a 50-50 is either by forcing them (bad idea as already mentioned) or providing greater incentives for women to join a certain field ( such as engineering) which I disagree with as it is sexist since less qualified women are given places over more qualified men for the sake of equality.
I agree that Julia Gillard had to put up with snide, 'gendered' remarks that no male PMs were forced to endure. However, this does not detract from my criticisms of her (namely that she ran a dysfunctional government with record-low approval ratings). Sure, she faced difficult circumstances (a hung parliament and the ghost of K Rudd), but ultimately she just couldn't govern effectively imho.
It seems to be the case that 'sexism' against female politicians is often used to explain away their failings to a large extent. This was the case with Gillard, as well as Hillary Clinton. However, this analysis is seldom applied to politicians of the Right. The fact that Marine Le Pen would have been the first female president of France barely rated a mention during the French campaign (unlike Clinton's, in which you couldn't escape hearing slogans like 'I'm with her'). Additionally, Pauline Hanson has been similarly attacked in a sexist manner (was originally named the 'witch from Ipswich'), yet this is seemingly glossed over in the prevailing political/media discourse in Australia. To my mind, feminists need to be more consistent when discussing issues pertaining to gender equality. Whether they are actually fond of the female politicians in question should be irrelevant.
On the broader issue of female representation in Australian politics, I don't see an issue with endeavouring to achieve a 50-50 target. As the Parliament is supposed to represent the people, it should reflect the composition of Australia's population accurately. However, in other industries, I think that gender composition is rather unimportant (for instance, I couldn't care less that a majority of Veterinarians are female, or that a majority of barristers are male- I just want a decent service from the professional in question).
You're not mutilating someone by deciding that as a woman you don't want to be a politician.
Because instinctually and innately, women prefer more maternal jobs compared to men. This is evolutionarily true; females, not just in the human species, are the ones who usually care for the children. This is not something we nor other animals learnt to do - it is instinctual. Therefore, females would much rather prefer a maternal job.
As a female I would love to care for my own children when I'm older and would be happy to cook and clean around the house - this is something I have decided, and no one has told me that as a woman, this is what I should be doing. It's something I know I would enjoy.
In my household, both my parents cook the food and take care of the children, so I've certainly been raised in a very 'equal' family. Therefore my upbringing has certainly not influenced me at all. I, like men, have a choice, as to whether or not I want to go into politics, or whether I prefer doing a job at all, or whether I would prefer being a stay at home mum and raising children. I personally would prefer to work because I want to be a doctor and I wouldn't feel right not pulling my own weight around the house - but being a stay at home mum isn't a bad thing. My mum is a stay at home mum and chose to do so. She has a Masters in Botany and could easily have gotten a job but she didn't want to leave her children at home while my dad and her went off to work. So, it was of her own choice that she decided not to work. No one told her that because she's a woman, she can't get a job. She simply decided to. No oppression here. In fact, she loves it and I recently asked her, would you have rather worked? And she said, no, I wouldn't change it for the world, because raising children is the most rewarding thing she could ever do.
And...what would be that problem? I don't see anyone complaining that there aren't enough males in nursing, or that there aren't enough men in early education (97% women, by the way).
So you were told (I'm guessing your female, from your username) that because you're a girl you can't aspire to certain fields? Wow, that's harsh. Whoever said that to you is wrong. Certainly no one I know has ever told a female that before. Or a man, for that matter. Sorry that happened to you.
Okay I get how you could say misogynistic but give me a quote where Donald Trump said anything against gay people - he literally said, and I quote, 'I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the hateful foreign ideologies.'
okay gonna say something controversial...(haven't properly read the comments and soz for messy grammar)
as a female, non-feminist, I think the way gillard was treated as PM was disgusting (soz for my extreme language).
as a female, non-feminist,
So you were told (I'm guessing your female, from your username) that because you're a girl you can't aspire to certain fields? Wow, that's harsh. Whoever said that to you is wrong. Certainly no one I know has ever told a female that before. Or a man, for that matter. Sorry that happened to you.
Okay I get how you could say misogynistic but give me a quote where Donald Trump said anything against gay people - he literally said, and I quote, 'I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the hateful foreign ideologies.'
Malcolm Turnbull is the 29th Prime Minister of Australia. He's the 28th male Prime Minister of Australia.While Julia Gillard was treated poorly (so was tony abott), I'd say that the place of women in contemporary society is valued.
The one female - Julia Gillard - was (at least IMO) incredibly unfairly lambasted during her time as Prime Minister. She was criticised for appearance, clothing choices and voice in a way that no male Prime Minister ever would be. There was great emphasis on her home life. Like very, very many female politicians, she suffered from the "double bind": if she had kids, she'd be construed as uncommitted to her profession; if she didn't, she'd be construed as too ambitious and career-driven.
It's a consistent thing, and it's still happening.
We want female politicians to remain "feminine" in a historically and stereotypically "masculine" domain - but not too feminine, because that would apparently be unsuitable for the role.
After the 2016 election, women made up 32 per cent of Parliament (source). For the Liberal Party, the figure was just 21%.
Is Australia, deep down, still a patriarchal society? What are our collective views about the place of women in contemporary Australian society?
While Julia Gillard was treated poorly (so was tony abott), I'd say that the place of women in contemporary society is valued.The difference between the poor treatment of Gillard and Abbott though was that a lot of the hate she received was directly tied to her status as a woman. Comments in regards to her appearance, her lack of children, her partner, the clothes she wore etc. etc. Abbott hardly ever, if at all, received these sorts of comments, his hate was usually connected to his own (imo) buffoonery ("no one is the suppository of all wisdom" ~ potentially my favourite quote, and sums him up perfectly.)
There is conflation of equality and sameness. And it's an error all too easily made if your starting point is that the sexes are "really" the same and that apparent differences are mere artifacts of sexist socialization.
In society, women and men dominate different areas of occupations and areas. Women, being the things that deal with empathy and men being the jobs that hard, dirty and somewhat isolated.
Nursing, for example, is currently 90% female.
Construction , for example, is currently 90% Male
It becomes logical to explain this as the result not of discrimination but of choice.
Well, it shouldn’t be suspect. Because the sexes do differ—and in ways that, on average, make a notable difference to their distribution in today's workplace.
In my opinion the fact that the country is run by men is more due to the societal gender stereotypes than this idea that everyone is actively discriminating against women. I feel like these gender stereotypes that men should be strong leaders and the breadwinner of the family and women should care for the children is the main reason why men dominate politics. These characteristics which people expect of politicians are the qualities which society expects men to contain. I just feel like these gender stereotypes play a huge role in the differences between the number of males and females in certain fields. In my opinion, if we want to create a completely equal society, I think that we have to rid society of these gender stereotypes and roles.I honestly think this is a really insightful post.
She was criticised for appearance, clothing choices and voice in a way that no male Prime Minister ever would be.To be fair, she did have a *really* annoying voice... 😜
i think the fact that Tony Abbott was literally the Minister for Women for a period of time says it all.
Remember when he said the abolition of the carbon tax was his greatest achievement as Minister for Women? Yeah. Yeah...
At this stage, all I want to say has been said. There are so many parts of our legal system that I desire change in (in relation to abortion, marriage equality, "revenge porn", sexual assault), and I do consider how different it would be if the cabinet were 50/50. Put aside the reason why these people are here or how they got there, the experience of men and women in society is completely different (and different again based on sexuality, class, etc), and the response to different concerns will be influenced by gendered discourse. When the amendments to the legislation pertaining to abortion was proposed, and then knocked back, in NSW last week, I couldn't help but be reminded of the Seinfeld episode where Elaine says, "if men could get abortions you'd be able to get them at an ATM." Not to make the discussion about abortion - but rather the reality that the legal and political systems were created by men, in the greatest interest of men. Undoubtably this is changing (hello Gough Whitlam and no fault divorce in the 1970s, legend), but I do wonder if it would all change faster with more women in parliament.
My local member, Susan Templeman, is incredible in my opinion. But even more outstanding, is Emma Hassar, the member for the district next to mine. I'm completely blissed that I have two strong, female leaders in what is otherwise typically conservative (for loss of a better word) area.
LOLThis this.
Reading these responses make me feel annoyed at AN. Everyone is so inconsisitent. For example : The same people who proclaimed there are 70 genders are now dividing into 2 :P. I dont care what anyone believes in and they have a right to believe in anything they want but atleast be consistent. Not just arguing a point when it suits you. SMH
32/68 divide as per OPs post so there is somewhat of a disparity - now what would you say is a fair divide? Exactly 50/50? The last thing anyone should want is some one getting a job for there gender over merit(basically everyone is saying this...) so exact divides are meaningless.
Im not saying that there is no indirect discrimination but a lot of people are making it seem like a 5/95 divide. Like everything it is a gradual process so dont expect to find an easy quick fix method.
It would be nice to see the gender divide into who actually ran for parliament and the % sucess rate for the 2 genders.
LOL
Reading these responses make me feel annoyed at AN. Everyone is so inconsisitent. For example : The same people who proclaimed there are 70 genders are now dividing into 2 :P. I dont care what anyone believes in and they have a right to believe in anything they want but atleast be consistent. Not just arguing a point when it suits you. SMH
LOL
Reading these responses make me feel annoyed at AN. Everyone is so inconsisitent. For example : The same people who proclaimed there are 70 genders are now dividing into 2 :P. I dont care what anyone believes in and they have a right to believe in anything they want but atleast be consistent. Not just arguing a point when it suits you. SMH
32/68 divide as per OPs post so there is somewhat of a disparity - now what would you say is a fair divide? Exactly 50/50? The last thing anyone should want is some one getting a job for there gender over merit(basically everyone is saying this...) so exact divides are meaningless.
Im not saying that there is no indirect discrimination but a lot of people are making it seem like a 5/95 divide. Like everything it is a gradual process so dont expect to find an easy quick fix method.
It would be nice to see the gender divide into who actually ran for parliament and the % sucess rate for the 2 genders.
This this.
What is a "reasonable split"?
SOme industries are highly dominated by males or females.
In nursing, 40% of females would need to be fired
In engineering, over 40% of males would need to be fired or rejected
In housing construction, over 40% of males would need to be fired or rejected..
The list goes on...
(THAT would be discrimination it itself ... or bias towards a gender which is obv bad)... for the sake of equality.
...
112 genders exist according to the safe schools program... idk.. it changes all the time :P
jw, do you guys believe in democracy?Spoileryes, ppl do elect ppl who they feel best represents them? because i'm a woman, does it mean that i should elect a woman because she best represents me?? what if i felt the male's policies reflect me more?
the beautiful thing about a democracy is we are freely to elect anyone (i'm being half sarcastic half serious here, obviously this depends on whether or not you believe in true democracy)
sure, some of us might not like trump (myself included but this is irrelevant), but it's a democracy, he won the election fair and square. he might not be qualified, but enough people wanted him (yes i know he lost the popular vote but that's due to a fault in their electoral system which i personally do not like but rules are rules and he won). and the other beautiful thing about a democracy is that anyone can run for office (again, take that either sarcastically or seriously depending on how you view it)
the aim of politics is to get as many votes as you can. that's how people believe you have "merit" to do your job.
not all trump's voters are men, many women have voted for him too
and many (women) trump voters have also understood the possible "consequences" of having a potential "misogynistic" president.
feel free to disagree :)
and i'm welcome to any criticisms too because i know i can be ignorant :)
~ sorry if this is slightly offtrack but we were on the talk about equal representation
btw, geminii pretty much spot on answers what I was going to say regarding why i'm not a feminist, I was just too scared to say it myself
also, she also made another post here which I agree with too
jw, do you guys believe in democracy?
The reason why there are gender quotas/or complaints about democracy in a few areas, is because competency or perceptions of it at least, are subconsciously influenced by gender as well as race. The fact is that voters perceive men to be more 'politician-like' because men in politics is considered to be mainstream and are considered to be more competent at serious issues like the economy and international relations. The majority of voters do not scrutinize, fact-check or read policy analysis, and as a result rely on subconscious biases on who appears to be competent and look like a politician (I am willing to say Marine Le Pen and Pauline Hanson did suffer from voters subconscious biases as well).
The way that gender quotas/race quotas for Indigenous Australians work is two-fold, first is that they expose the public to female and Indigenous politicians and show that females and indigenous people are capable of discussing important economical and societal issues, changing people's mindsets on what is mainstream or who looks like a politician. Over-time, when competent female and indigenous politicians in society are considered mainstream and voters are more willing to vote females into parliament, quotas are no longer required. The second part is that, it encourages more competent women to enter politics because they see that the system is actively doing something to increase female participation as well as because they don't have to face the subconscious biases of voters. Quotas do not promote mediocrity as the quotas aren't large enough to accommodate incompetent people but rather to bring the competent few into the mainstream. The type of women that would enter politics under a model would be those that already has an interest in policy and society, through avenues such journalism, civil service, think-tanks or academia but didn't enter politics because of society's sub-conscious biases, toxic culture in political parties (which would prevent them from being nominated/pre-selected even before they entered the voting booth) as well as a lack of belief in their own selves (as a result of gender socialization). When there are many competent women entering politics and voters willing to vote for them, quotas are no longer required.
And then I realised something. It started when Donald Trump began trying out for president of the US. I saw my (girls only) school transform from a woman loving school into a man hating school. Everyone was hating on Donald Trump - everyone. Someone, for their art class, drew an obscene picture of him (which was approved by teachers and displayed to parents, mind you) with a you-know-what on his head. Imagine if something like that was drawn on a woman by someone in my school, or any school - the painter would be suspended and the painting definitely not approved. Also, all hell would break loose with cries of 'sexism', 'patriarchy' and 'oppression'. But everyone laughed when they saw Donald Trump painted in that way. Even if it was drawn on a woman that a lot of people dislike - like Pauline Hanson - it would be safe to say that people would assume that the reason why it was drawn on her is because she's a female, not because her policies are disliked. According to feminists - when a man is hated, it's because of his behaviour and is perfectly acceptable. But when a woman is hated, God help the person who insulted her because it was an attack on her status as a female and nothing to do with her views. #feministlogic
That's why I'm not a feminist. I don't hate men. I don't hate women. I'll like you if I think you're a good person, despite your gender. I'll dislike your viewpoints if I disagree with them, despite your gender. I'll dislike you if I don't think you're a good person, despite your gender.
LOL
Reading these responses make me feel annoyed at AN. Everyone is so inconsisitent. For example : The same people who proclaimed there are 70 genders are now dividing into 2 :P. I dont care what anyone believes in and they have a right to believe in anything they want but atleast be consistent. Not just arguing a point when it suits you. SMH
jw, do you guys believe in democracy?Spoileryes, ppl do elect ppl who they feel best represents them? because i'm a woman, does it mean that i should elect a woman because she best represents me?? what if i felt the male's policies reflect me more?
the beautiful thing about a democracy is we are freely to elect anyone (i'm being half sarcastic half serious here, obviously this depends on whether or not you believe in true democracy)
sure, some of us might not like trump (myself included but this is irrelevant), but it's a democracy, he won the election fair and square. he might not be qualified, but enough people wanted him (yes i know he lost the popular vote but that's due to a fault in their electoral system which i personally do not like but rules are rules and he won). and the other beautiful thing about a democracy is that anyone can run for office (again, take that either sarcastically or seriously depending on how you view it)
the aim of politics is to get as many votes as you can. that's how people believe you have "merit" to do your job.
not all trump's voters are men, many women have voted for him too
and many (women) trump voters have also understood the possible "consequences" of having a potential "misogynistic" president.
feel free to disagree :)
and i'm welcome to any criticisms too because i know i can be ignorant :)
~ sorry if this is slightly offtrack but we were on the talk about equal representation
I'm a bit confused as to where you have noted an inconsistency? In my opinion, the argument that I (and others have raised), that gender norms and gendered expectations are critical in analysing why "choice" alone is an unreliable factor is very consistent with (at least my) opinion upon the whole "72 genders" debate. As this isn't what the topic is, I won't go into it too much (or at least I'll try not to haha), but whether you believe that the "72 genders" are legitimate or not, my belief is that the reason we have so many people expressing an alternative gender identity is because we have codified gender expression so heavily within society according to feminine and masculine traits, that those that feel like they don't "fit" seek alternative labels. It's a whole other topic that is further impacted by gender norms. And just because throughout this we've focused on men and women doesn't mean that we also don't accept that other people fall somewhere else on the spectrum - the fact is that the majority of society still sees the world in this male/female dichotomy, and most people identify as one or the other, it is a very small (but still important) section of society that identifies otherwise. So shaping this argument around the two is more effective - you're getting too caught up in semantics.lololololol
If anything, I'd say it's more inconsistent to stress personal agency when choosing a career, and not with how you choose to identify/define yourself.
lololololol
everyone is agreeing with that(gender stereotypes) so why bring it up again - it's not a debate nor a rant
sometimes you gotta take a small L to strengthen your whole argument :)
feminism (according to Google): the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes. If you believe in gender equality, you are a feminist. It has the name 'feminism' because, traditionally, males had more rights than women - It's not the most appropriate name in many ways these days, but that's what it is by definition. Gender Equality is feminism :)
I'm a bit confused as to where you have noted an inconsistency?
But, like many industries, politics is a traditionally male-dominated space. Women weren't allowed to vote or be voted in until just after Federation in Australia - Meaning until just 100 years ago, women could not be politicians. Not, "they didn't want to," they couldn't. And that was considered (relatively) fine and normal. That's a big bit of social conditioning, and clearly that has shrunk away significantly in the 100 years since the change.
I think it is interesting when we discuss 'targets' for gender distribution in these sort of areas. If someone said, "100% female," pretty much everyone would throw that out the door as unrealistic and unfair. The issue is, did anyone bat an eyelid when it was 100% male?
You raised the topic of gender constructs in the first place? And adding "lololololol" to the start of your post is really not debating in the spirit of the thread - No one is laughing at your opinions. Please don't laugh at theirs.Fair enough (as a note - lol doesn't really mean laughing anymore it's more of a conjunction :) )
One ideology in feminism - support all genders.
Another ideology in feminism - empower women.
When you're arguing for a 50-50 representation between males and females in politics, what you're doing is denying the existence of other genders. What about non-binary people and trans people? What about people who don't identify with a gender? What about people who are somewhere in between? What about people who are gender-questioning? Not that I believe in any of these so-called genders but in general feminists do.
Fair enough (as a note - lol doesn't really mean laughing anymore it's more of a conjunction :) )
Did I bring it up? It was mentioned previously no? I spoke about how those who previously believed very strongly that there are 70+ genders are talking about 2 at the moment. Like user : suddods says it's just semantics but I find it annoying having people do backflips (after arguing so passionately). (although it's okay to change opinion)
Yes. 100 years ago. 100. This is 2017. We don't tell people anymore that they can't be this or that because they're a woman. It's not the 19th century anymore. We don't live in the Victorian era where women were meant to be all proper. We live in 2017 where women are in just about every single job that exists, and we're still complaining. When will it ever be good enough for these feminists? When we get 50-50 in politics? Is that when it'll be good enough? Because some people just don't want to go into politics. I think it's boring. A lot of people I know (my friends, who are all female since I go to a girls school) want to do other jobs. The idea of politics simply doesn't appeal to them. It's a dry job, in a lot of people's opinion, and most of my friends want to get into medicine, which is much more exciting for us.
Well, there's much less than 100% male, and people are having a hissy fit.
@gemini I don't mean any disrespect, but it seems like most of your concerns are to do with protecting the state from the plague that is the general public perception of your 'feminists'. You haven't actually engaged very well with what are some very good points raised by members here imo
EDIT: sorry I realise I sound v. harsh. But there were some really good points raised by The Raven and appleandbee which you didn't address.
Do you actively deny the fact that there is a subconscious gendered bias in society? If so, at what point do you disagree with there being such a thing?
Do your concerns mostly come from your belief that sexism against women is a heavily mythologised concept? If so, what evidence do you have to support this?
Fair enough (as a note - lol doesn't really mean laughing anymore it's more of a conjunction :) )It isn't a conjunction, and whilst lol doesn't mean "laughing", starting your first reply with "LOL" clearly indicates you think something is laughable, and writing "lolololol" after directly quoting someone is clearly laughing at them.
I find it annoying having people do backflips (after arguing so passionately). (although it's okay to change opinion)I am not even fully sure who you're referring to re: the multiple gender argument, but literally no one mentioned it in this thread before you did, so just untrue to say that people have backflipped. Like... if someone says they love all pets, then has a discussion on whether cats v dogs are better... that doesn't mean they no longer like other pets? If someone says they think there are >2 genders, then discuss whether the proportion of men v women in parliament should change... there is literally nothing - that means, absolutely zero - implication that they have backtracked on their earlier position. Saying "men and women should be 50/50 in parliament" in no way implies that men and women are the only genders. Like... If I said "the North Melbourne Football Club should be 100% men", do I imply that women to not exist? (The answer is no...) So if I say "Parliament should be 50% women and 50% men", do I imply that other genders don't exist? (Again... the answer is no).
It isn't a conjunction, and whilst lol doesn't mean "laughing", starting your first reply with "LOL" clearly indicates you think something is laughable, and writing "lolololol" after directly quoting someone is clearly laughing at them.hmmm ok
I am not even fully sure who you're referring to re: the multiple gender argument, but literally no one mentioned it in this thread before you did, so just untrue to say that people have backflipped. Like... if someone says they love all pets, then has a discussion on whether cats v dogs are better... that doesn't mean they no longer like other pets? If someone says they think there are >2 genders, then discuss whether the proportion of men v women in parliament should change... there is literally nothing - that means, absolutely zero - implication that they have backtracked on their earlier position. Saying "men and women should be 50/50 in parliament" in no way implies that men and women are the only genders. Like... If I said "the North Melbourne Football Club should be 100% men", do I imply that women to not exist? (The answer is no...) So if I say "Parliament should be 50% women and 50% men", do I imply that other genders don't exist? (Again... the answer is no).
Seems like you got annoyed over nothing.
And now, I'd like to ask you a few questions:
- Where is your evidence of unconscious bias? Do you have solid proof of it?
- What is your solution to tackling this so-called 'unconscious bias'? Remember, it's not just a thought - it's a thought that you don't even know you're having.
- What is an example of sexism against women in a first world country today? Do you acknowledge that this 'sexism' you claim exists is not as severe as that faced by women in third world countries?
- What are some behaviours that you consider sexist, and why?
- Do you believe sexism against men exists?
And now, I'd like to ask you a few questions:Where is your evidence of unconscious bias? Do you have solid proof of it?
- Where is your evidence of unconscious bias? Do you have solid proof of it?
- What is your solution to tackling this so-called 'unconscious bias'? Remember, it's not just a thought - it's a thought that you don't even know you're having.
- What is an example of sexism against women in a first world country today? Do you acknowledge that this 'sexism' you claim exists is not as severe as that faced by women in third world countries?
- What are some behaviours that you consider sexist, and why?
- Do you believe sexism against men exists?
Where is your evidence of unconscious bias? Do you have solid proof of it?
Haha I'll get back to you when I actually research this fairly.
LOL
Reading these responses make me feel annoyed at AN. Everyone is so inconsisitent. For example : The same people who proclaimed there are 70 genders are now dividing into 2 :P. I dont care what anyone believes in and they have a right to believe in anything they want but atleast be consistent. Not just arguing a point when it suits you. SMH
This this.
What is a "reasonable split"?
SOme industries are highly dominated by males or females.
In nursing, 40% of females would need to be fired
In engineering, over 40% of males would need to be fired or rejected
In housing construction, over 40% of males would need to be fired or rejected..
The list goes on...
(THAT would be discrimination it itself ... or bias towards a gender which is obv bad)... for the sake of equality.
...
112 genders exist according to the safe schools program... idk.. it changes all the time :P
Pretty sure that, just because we are discussing males vs females in politics, doesn't mean people have now abandoned other views on gender that may have been raised earlier. That's just not really the discussion right here - And I don't really like what you insinuate about people when you say they are arguing points when it suits them (because I don't think anyone here is doing that) :P
Yeah there are so many contradictions with this whole thing...first people are saying that there are 67 genders - then I heard 76 - and apparently there are 252 according to another source?!?! Okay first of all there are only two genders but that's a discussion for another time.
Someone a while ago asked strawberries why they're not a feminist - I agree with strawberries in this sentiment. I used to be a feminist, and quite a vocal one at that. I believed in the gender wage gap, that women were literally being treated like dirt everywhere around the world (even here - that's what feminists always make it seem like) and that men were literally the Hitlers of the planet. That's what I thought. That's what everyone told me.
And then I realised something. It started when Donald Trump began trying out for president of the US. I saw my (girls only) school transform from a woman loving school into a man hating school. Everyone was hating on Donald Trump - everyone. Someone, for their art class, drew an obscene picture of him (which was approved by teachers and displayed to parents, mind you) with a you-know-what on his head. Imagine if something like that was drawn on a woman by someone in my school, or any school - the painter would be suspended and the painting definitely not approved. Also, all hell would break loose with cries of 'sexism', 'patriarchy' and 'oppression'. But everyone laughed when they saw Donald Trump painted in that way. Even if it was drawn on a woman that a lot of people dislike - like Pauline Hanson - it would be safe to say that people would assume that the reason why it was drawn on her is because she's a female, not because her policies are disliked.
According to feminists - when a man is hated, it's because of his behaviour and is perfectly acceptable. But when a woman is hated, God help the person who insulted her because it was an attack on her status as a female and nothing to do with her views. #feministlogic
If politics isn't your thing, whether you're male or female, then, don't do it! Just do you, do whatever you want to do as a job, and stop crying out 'sexism' and 'oppression' because there aren't enough females to your liking in politics. I'm certainly not crying out 'sexism' because there aren't enough male teachers in primary schools (which is also an extremely important job, by the way).
Where is your evidence of unconscious bias? Do you have solid proof of it?
Haha I'll get back to you when I actually research this fairly. I'll try to give a balanced view on this, because I'm curious myself. As for the validity of the theory, I believe it exists mainly because we're all so human lol, and because of the general trends which we see over in research on media, occupation, statistics which have always been on the affirmative of attitudes which discourage/ discriminate against women; and like in an article I remember reading that reported that of the proportion of women represented in a varying array of ~950 news outlets, an overwhelming majority of them are represented in image than in text. The paper also concluded from the survey**(sorry I haven't found it yet, but I promise it was a legit study) of like 2 million articles that there was a 77% probability that a person written about in text was male, and like 69.6% probability that the image depicting a person was a male. It's nonsensical to argue that this finding isn't significant due to the large sample size they've gathered from; women are under-represented is my firm belief from just that one article, but I am certain there are so many others out there, with even a stronger correlation to argue the case better. I also, think that we can't isolate this with the general trends that have from time to time seen itself exposed ie. conservative attitude toward women and gender roles for example. There are probably hundreds of research out there which seem to point towards some sense that society favours men over women. But I'll get back to you on that if I can remove myself from SACs, and present something at least passable.
Also, it's important to think of subconscious gender bias as a theory to describe a pattern of behaviours that point toward gender imbalanced views from a societal level (?) *I'm not an expert, but that's at least my approximation of what I had in mind when I used it.
But, rather than waiting for my response though, you could do your own research on it as well, since I can't be solely relied on to deliver :P
What are some behaviours that you consider sexist, and why?
I think sexism, while it can be immediately and directly identified with blatant and highly discriminating behaviours like a person saying someone is incompetent based on only their gender; I think it persists in modern society indirectly through more subtle behaviours which are circumstantial, but have an irrefutable sexist connotation; like in joseph41's article it's worth asking ourselves why it was that the men and their attitudes were favoured above the female student who was asked not to participate because she'd make the guys feel "uncomfortable" etc. So I can't give one example, as there are a plethora of examples, and I don't think specifying and making an example out of one would aid in this particular discussion. Unless, if the discussion was centred on a particular individual's action, than it would be worth exploring; but in this case, I don't think it would contribute much, other than my declaration that something a bit unrelated and removed from the topic is sexist.
What is an example of sexism against women in a first world country today? Do you acknowledge that this 'sexism' you claim exists is not as severe as that faced by women in third world countries?
If we're looking at severity of sexism, especially with regards to other forms of oppression at play as well, I can't make a fair case either way: we'd be meddling in the realms of ethics, morals, circumstances that are so culturally diverse (like there are just more than one sort of culture in what we call the third-world). Sure, generally, I'd say women in third world countries have a harder time, but I'm suspecting that you're only asking this to devalue the sexism that is apparent in our society, which we reap the benefits from. Just because our lives are generally a lot safer than those in other countries, it doesn't call for a halt in scrutinising other's behaviours and striving for equality in a society that is democratic and liberal in general values.
Do you believe sexism against men exists?
Of course, I don't deny that sexism against men do exist. There are probably many examples of it such as toxic masculinity, gender roles, and others which I can't think of from the top of my head. However, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't also view unjust behaviours toward women with the same gravity.
*I'll try to find the article I was talking about above and will update when I find it***
Alright, but you still didn't answer this question (I'll reply in full when I have more time haha :))
What is your solution to tackling this so-called 'unconscious bias'? Remember, it's not just a thought - it's a thought that you don't even know you're having.
Also just a side note: I genuinely appreciate all the responses, here - irrespective of argument. :) As previously mentioned, it definitely can be difficult to speak your mind!RIP when I get downvoted :( :( :(
RIP when I get downvoted :( :( :(
ps. this thread has probably been some of the most controversial things i've publicly posted. i respect all of your views/discussion, and i am sorry if i have offended anyone, man or woman. i honestly think you're all great people and nothing, your gender, should stop you from achieving your dreams, whether it be in politics or elsewhere :D
and i am also sorry to any women/girls here in particular, who have been told that they "couldn't" do things because they're female :(
a question to the men/males here: how would you feel if your spot, say, in a future career/job, was taken by a woman, not because she was more competent than you, but simply because she was a woman? would you be okay with it? would you feel discriminated against?
obviously, i'm not saying that men are more competent than women in all areas. there are obviously some women more competent than men.
ps. this thread has probably been some of the most controversial things i've publicly posted. i respect all of your views/discussion, and i am sorry if i have offended anyone, man or woman. i honestly think you're all great people and nothing, your gender, should stop you from achieving your dreams, whether it be in politics or elsewhere :DTbh I think you have handled yourself really well - we may disagree on a few things, but personally I don't think you have said anything offensive (in fact I'd say the opposite - you've been super respectful in my view) :) It's super important that everyone gets the opportunity to share their opinion, and you should never feel scared to do so - no matter how "controversial" ;)
and i am also sorry to any women/girls here in particular, who have been told that they "couldn't" do things because they're female :(
It is well within reason for someone to down-vote you if they don't like your conduct or feel the way you present your views (intentional or otherwise) is disrespectful/patronising, irrespective of the actual views you presentI don't mean to drag this on and for what it's worth this thread is well beyond it's expiry date since it's no longer answering OP's question. (lock thread? - many people have asked me)
a question to the men/males here: how would you feel if your spot, say, in a future career/job, was taken by a woman, not because she was more competent than you, but simply because she was a woman? would you be okay with it? would you feel discriminated against?
obviously, i'm not saying that men are more competent than women in all areas. there are obviously some women more competent than men.
personally, as a woman, I would hate to be told that "oh you're only here cos you're a woman" etc, i want to learn to work hard rather than wait for things to be handed to me.
You have a couple of loaded assumptions in your argument:
a) You yourself have self-created and perpetuated the stereotype that if a girl is employed, gender is a factor
b) A woman probably isn't as competent as a man
c) Women and men are considered on an equal playing field with employers (in the fields of interest) and are perceived in the same way
d) Women would be stealing jobs from men
I'll start with d), and consider it in two parts, 1) How will this be done (taking off from EEEEEEP’s weird logic that politicians and engineers would be fired)?
Quotas or incentives doesn’t result in anyone being fired. Gender balance isn’t an overnight result, it happens overtime when you employ more women into engineering and corporate graduate positions and the skewed percentages evens out after a while. This doesn’t involve firing anyone. As for politics, a career as a politician isn’t designed to be a stable job, an entitlement or a lifelong career. People get careers in politics and manage to stay in it, because they are backed by certain factions and have the right connections within the party at a certain point in time. A person from the same party can challenge the current member in a seat (as Bill Shorten and Malcolm Turnbull did in their respective seats) if they feel that they have the factional and party membership backing. Sexism and the toxic culture which surrounds is often more explicit and prevalent in party factions (in both left and right-wing parties) and the membership base where the ‘old boys club’ culture persist, which prevents female candidates from being supported and nominated in the first place.
The second part, How do guys feel?:
Obviously I’m not a guy, but I am in a few traditionally male-dominated areas. I am a Physics major at uni (as well as a Neuroscience and Philosophy triple), doing a long-term internship at a prominent economics/international politics/societal issues/science magazine, am involved in the university debating society and hoping to train as a Neurologist. I haven’t faced salty men in my fields, and have the support of my debating society’s presidents (who are both male) and got of mentorship at the magazine (mentors and editors are all male). At the Australian and Australasian Intervarsities (which I’ll be attending in July), all university contingents have to be composed of at least 1/3 female/non-cis male in both the debating and adjudicating components. My university’s contingent is about 40-60% female at all recent major tournaments, so the quotas didn’t affect the selection of men. Over-time the representation of females increased due to the greater incentive, encourage and training resources and the fact that selectors are more open to selecting women because they have been exposed to great female debaters through the use of quotas. I’ve never encountered a salty guy in the contingent.
In the first place (tackling assumptions b) and c) ), women and men in certain fields aren’t even considered on equal footing in employment in certain fields, due to the implicit biases about perceived competency, maternity leave discrimination, lack of exposure in the mainstream that I discussed a few posts ago (you should have read it). You should be asking “How does a women feel?”. The opposite of what you are suggesting is happening, that a women has to appear perfect and be exceptional of be on the corporate executive board, high flying consulting or engineering firm. Quotas are meant to tackle the implicit biases and maternity leave discrimination and provide greater exposure to employers about the abilities of females.
As for politics, people vote in two ways. Firstly, based on the party (nothing wrong with that since broad ideology and overall outcomes are important). As I mentioned before, the explicit sexism and toxic culture in party factions, membership base and well as in feeder areas like trade unions, the IPA and student politics (which are important platforms), prevent many women from being preselected, nominated and supported by the party factions in the first place. The second way people vote, is based on the person, where subconscious and unconscious biases play a major factor, which I discussed in detail a few posts ago. Only a minority of voters actually read policy manifestos, analysis and do fact-checking.
And yes, I would support quotas for men in childcare if there was evidence to suggest that discrimination in the industry or by employers prevented them from being employed, hence why they decided not to pursue childcare. A bit of sexism and gendered perpetuation amongst society exists in regards to male childcare workers, but there is no barriers to them being employed as far as I know of. Gender imbalance is some fields is an issue because it isn’t due to free choice and because barriers exists in entering the field (when there is a fairly even distribution of women studying commerce, international relations and law at university, I'm not too sure how you can suggest that they aren't interested in high-level corporate roles and politics. Sure job skills is different from studying a subjects, but those qualities are honed through experience, internships and opportunities and well as some encouragement to aim for as high as they want).
EDIT: I do not believe, that women are obligated to vote for female politicians because there are many considerations involved. I myself, would have have voted for Joe Biden over Hillary Clinton had he ran for President (though if Janet Yellen, the Reserve Bank governor ran, it would have made my choice more complicated), because of his focus on the most economically and socially disenfranchised. I'm just saying saying that given that most people vote for a politician based on the party banner or their perception/media construction of the person rather than actual polities, it is important that we reduce the bottlenecks in party politics preventing and persuading women from being nominated as well as the subconscious and unconscious biases of voters (through more exposure in the mainstream), in order to allow voters to make a more informed choice (for themselves, I'm not suggesting a certain outcome) and improve the structures/mechanisms within parties.
I do respect the views of others, but it does annoy me when people refuse to engage with other people's views (but still like to argue and assert their points), continue asserting the same responses ignoring the context provided in other people's arguments and back away from their responses/become unresponsive when people answer their questions in a way that doesn't follow their hypothesis. People are actively trying to respectfully engage with them, but that isn't reciprocated unfortunately, and thus people are not able to understand their views (which I'm genuinely interested in, especially when it is different from mine).okay, I don't know if you're referring to me here, but i have been engaging with others' views thank you very much :) i just haven't quoted them. and yes, i am allowed to introduce new arguments can i not?
You have a couple of loaded assumptions in your argument:a) I did not load this assumption in my argument at all. but we cannot deny that in some places they are 'required' to have a certain number of women.
a) You yourself have self-created and perpetuated the stereotype that if a girl is employed, gender is a factor
b) A woman probably isn't as competent as a man
c) Women and men are considered on an equal playing field with employers (in the fields of interest) and are perceived in the same way
d) Women would be stealing jobs from men
I'll start with d), and consider it in two parts, 1) How will this be done (taking off from EEEEEEP’s weird logic that politicians and engineers would be fired)?EEEEEEP can reply to this if he wants to, but I did not use his logic in addressing my arguments :)
Quotas or incentives doesn’t result in anyone being fired. Gender balance isn’t an overnight result, it happens overtime when you employ more women into engineering and corporate graduate positions and the skewed percentages evens out after a while. This doesn’t involve firing anyone. As for politics, a career as a politician isn’t designed to be a stable job, an entitlement or a lifelong career. People get careers in politics and manage to stay in it, because they are backed by certain factions and have the right connections within the party at a certain point in time. A person from the same party can challenge the current member in a seat (as Bill Shorten and Malcolm Turnbull did in their respective seats) if they feel that they have the factional and party membership backing. Sexism and the toxic culture which surrounds is often more explicit and prevalent in party factions (in both left and right-wing parties) and the membership base where the ‘old boys club’ culture persist, which prevents female candidates from being supported and nominated in the first place.
The second part, How do guys feel?:First of all, good job on your internships and debating success :)
Obviously I’m not a guy, but I am in a few traditionally male-dominated areas. I am a Physics major at uni (as well as a Neuroscience and Philosophy triple), doing a long-term internship at a prominent economics/international politics/societal issues/science magazine, am involved in the university debating society and hoping to train as a Neurologist. I haven’t faced salty men in my fields, and have the support of my debating society’s presidents (who are both male) and got of mentorship at the magazine (mentors and editors are all male). At the Australian and Australasian Intervarsities (which I’ll be attending in July), all university contingents have to be composed of at least 1/3 female/non-cis male in both the debating and adjudicating components. My university’s contingent is about 40-60% female at all recent major tournaments, so the quotas didn’t affect the selection of men. Over-time the representation of females increased due to the greater incentive, encourage and training resources and the fact that selectors are more open to selecting women because they have been exposed to great female debaters through the use of quotas. I’ve never encountered a salty guy in the contingent.
In the first place (tackling assumptions b) and c) ), women and men in certain fields aren’t even considered on equal footing in employment in certain fields, due to the implicit biases about perceived competency, maternity leave discrimination, lack of exposure in the mainstream that I discussed a few posts ago (you should have read it). You should be asking “How does a women feel?”. The opposite of what you are suggesting is happening, that a women has to appear perfect and be exceptional of be on the corporate executive board, high flying consulting or engineering firm. Quotas are meant to tackle the implicit biases and maternity leave discrimination and provide greater exposure to employers about the abilities of females.are you referring to this post that you wrote?
As for politics, people vote in two ways. Firstly, based on the party (nothing wrong with that since broad ideology and overall outcomes are important). As I mentioned before, the explicit sexism and toxic culture in party factions, membership base and well as in feeder areas like trade unions, the IPA and student politics (which are important platforms), prevent many women from being preselected, nominated and supported by the party factions in the first place. The second way people vote, is based on the person, where subconscious and unconscious biases play a major factor, which I discussed in detail a few posts ago. Only a minority of voters actually read policy manifestos, analysis and do fact-checking.yeah, there are many ways citizens vote which I do agree with you. our voting system may not be perfect, but after all, it is up to individual voters themselves to look up the individual candidates and their party manifestos :)
Just wanted to say: I've always had a feeling of malaise/deep discomfort when someone suggests to me that 50-50 quotas actively steal the opportunities of men, but I've never been able to locate logically why (I'm not v. adept in the logical reasoning department). I don't have much to add on, other than -- very well argued and thank you for sharing.
Well if the gender divide between people applying for a certain job is 70/30 favouring men, then it follows that the gender divide between the accepted applicants should be 70/30 assuming there is an equal distribution of competency for the job amongst both males and females. Thus, by forcing a 50/50 quota more competent males will lose the job to less competent females.
In this example, say there are 20 jobs and 100 applicants and 20 individuals at the 'highest competence level'. Given the distribution explained before and the 70/30 gender divide these 20 individuals will be composed of 14 men and 6 women. If you force a 50/50 quota, 4 of the competent men will miss out to females of a lower competence level.
If there is any logic flaw please tell me, but this is why I don't believe in gender quotas.
Ah I know what you mean. I suspect the other point for introducing quotas would be that you're assuming that there aren't other competent females who have missed out in that 70/30 divide. Like there are only 6 out of potentially 10 women who are competent enough to hold the position the employers have available of which there is 20 for both sexes. The exact same could be said about the male counterparts who are accepted in the place of what could have been a more competent female worker.
This argument could then be further supported by evidence of bias in employer's choosing of their employees where being male gives you significantly more edge than if you were female. So qualifications aside, from just being male you're more likely to be hired than your female counterpart.
By introducing quotas, I think it actually gives a greater incentive for employers to look for competent workers, simply because the quota not only encourages for us to have a balanced workplace/environment, but it also challenges the employer's own biases in regards to what is half the population in consideration. In jobs where the statistics are skewed and verifiably (by research) entrenched in subconscious gender bias, this could be especially helpful, as qualifications/employable skillset would become an overriding quality in any of the prospective candidates irrespective of gender.
However, and I see what you mean, the problem with this is, say for example in a job market such as politics, where due to the toxic environment, there may be a significantly lower proportion of females out in the job market suitable for that role; therefore, employers would feel compelled to hire those females instead of the male counterparts who may be more qualified of which there is a higher saturation of in the job market.
I'll probably leave this for another person to argue against, as I'm not sure I can put a good defence to it. Interesting though, nonetheless -- what you brought up :P.
Ah I know what you mean. I suspect the other point for introducing quotas would be that you're assuming that there aren't other competent females who have missed out in that 70/30 divide. Like there are only 6 out of potentially 10 women who are competent enough to hold the position the employers have available of which there is 20 for both sexes. The exact same could be said about the male counterparts who are accepted in the place of what could have been a more competent female worker.I'm going to label the genders A and B to prevent any bias from my part. If there are 70 of gender A that apply for a job with 10 places and 30 of gender B apply for the same job, then chances are there are more likely to be more competent gender A people. Your point is that hypothetically the minority gender, which in this case is gender B could have 10 very competent workers. In this case the 50/50 rule does disadvantage the minority gender, but in most cases statistically the majority gender, which in this case is gender A, is disadvantaged as they are more likely to have more competent workers which aren't accepted due to the 50/50 rule. So this 50/50 rule really disadvantages the majority gender in every field, no matter what the gender is. In my opinion this 50/50 rule isn't really curing the disease, rather it's just treating a symptom. In my opinion the 50/50 rule won't really provide a meaningful increase to the amount of applicants from the minority gender in certain jobs, as they will continue to be disinterested in these fields due to their environment and the way they are raised. We need to increase the amount of people from the minority gender wanting to go into each field and I feel that to do this, we need to remove the gender stereotypes and biases from society. I feel like we need to target and erase these stereotypes from a young age and really make children believe that they can be whatever they want to be. This way people of either gender will be more interested in going to all sorts of different jobs.
This argument could then be further supported by evidence of bias in employer's choosing of their employees where being male gives you significantly more edge than if you were female. So qualifications aside, from just being male you're more likely to be hired than your female counterpart.
By introducing quotas, I think it actually gives a greater incentive for employers to look for competent workers, simply because the quota not only encourages for us to have a balanced workplace/environment, but it also challenges the employer's own biases in regards to what is half the population in consideration. In jobs where the statistics are skewed and verifiably (by research) entrenched in subconscious gender bias, this could be especially helpful, as qualifications/employable skillset would become an overriding quality in any of the prospective candidates irrespective of gender.
However, and I see what you mean, the problem with this is, say for example in a job market such as politics, where due to the toxic environment, there may be a significantly lower proportion of females out in the job market suitable for that role; therefore, employers would feel compelled to hire those females instead of the male counterparts who may be more qualified of which there is a higher saturation of in the job market.
I'll probably leave this for another person to argue against, as I'm not sure I can put a good defence to it. Interesting though, nonetheless -- what you brought up :P.
I'm going to label the genders A and B to prevent any bias from my part. If there are 70 of gender A that apply for a job with 10 places and 30 of gender B apply for the same job, then chances are there are more likely to be more competent gender A people. Your point is that hypothetically the minority gender, which in this case is gender B could have 10 very competent workers. In this case the 50/50 rule does disadvantage the minority gender, but in most cases statistically the majority gender, which in this case is gender A, is disadvantaged as they are more likely to have more competent workers which aren't accepted due to the 50/50 rule. So this 50/50 rule really disadvantages the majority gender in every field, no matter what the gender is. In my opinion this 50/50 rule isn't really curing the disease, rather it's just treating a symptom. In my opinion the 50/50 rule won't really provide a meaningful increase to the amount of applicants from the minority gender in certain jobs, as they will continue to be disinterested in these fields due to their environment and the way they are raised. We need to increase the amount of people from the minority gender wanting to go into each field and I feel that to do this, we need to remove the gender stereotypes and biases from society. I feel like we need to target and erase these stereotypes from a young age and really make children believe that they can be whatever they want to be. This way people of either gender will be more interested in going to all sorts of different jobs.
I see, I see :o. But say hypothetically, if there were just as many competent women as there are competent men in the field, would it be fair to say then that a 50-50 quota would be disadvantaging no one?Hypothetically if there are just as many competent people applying for the job from both genders then it doesn't disadvantage anyone. Also, this doesn't always disadvantage males, it just disadvantages the majority gender. If this 50/50 rule was placed in childcare, then women would be disdvantaged as they dominate that field.
Of course, realistically, we would have to take into account that perhaps due to the way things are that that may not be the case; and hence, as you say it, it would be disadvantaging especially to the male counterpart in quite a significant way. I see, I see. Thanks for your input zhen!
I do respect the views of others, but it does annoy me when people refuse to engage with other people's views (but still like to argue and assert their points), continue asserting the same responses ignoring the context provided in other people's arguments and back away from their responses/become unresponsive when people answer their questions in a way that doesn't follow their hypothesis. People are actively trying to respectfully engage with them, but that isn't reciprocated unfortunately, and thus people are not able to understand their views (which I'm genuinely interested in, especially when it is different from mine).
The concession, acceptance and perpetuation of fucked gendered stereotypes which few members tried to disguise under the labelling of equality in society, claiming that women should be contented because they are employed, is ridiculous.
I see, I see :o. But say hypothetically, if there were just as many competent women as there are competent men in the field, would it be fair to say then that a 50-50 quota would be disadvantaging no one?
Of course, realistically, we would have to take into account that perhaps due to the way things are that that may not be the case; and hence, as you say it, it would be disadvantaging especially to the male counterpart in quite a significant way. I see, I see. Thanks for your input zhen!
Alright, but you still didn't answer this question (I'll reply in full when I have more time haha :))The term is unconscious, not undetectable, impossible to identify, or non-existent. You can absolute recognise unconscious bias, particularly in retrospect. Perhaps a word that doesn't quite mean the exact same thing, but is still applicable, would be to call it "unintentional bias" because it doesn't come from a place of intent, but simmers beneath the surface in a way that isn't on the forefront of the conscience (hence, unconscious bias). I've mentioned it before in another discussion, but I recognise my unconscious bias regularly and seek to challenge it.
What is your solution to tackling this so-called 'unconscious bias'? Remember, it's not just a thought - it's a thought that you don't even know you're having.