Australia is run by men - what does that say about us?

[Sine]

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 . 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.

[EEEEEEP]

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 . 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

[jamonwindeyer]

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 . 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

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)

[The Raven]

I feel like a distinction should be made between politics and any other career. The role of a politician is inherently to represent the population when making decisions that affect that population. Gender equality among our parliamentary representations isn't just about gender quotas or enforced gender equality but representing a population which is 50% female.

When you have a severely skewed male political leadership, you have things like 10 old men making policy on abortion laws like we see whenever the Republicans are ruling in the United States. Female (and minority) representation in parliament is about making sure that women's needs are addressed through a female perspective - I think Tony Abbott making himself Minister for Women reflects that. I'm sure his intentions were good but it shows how issues of women become skewed when women are not there to help in the decision making process.

Furthermore, this issue about how we should have the most 'qualified' people in parliament and that is why we can't *force* a equal representation is laughable. What determines how qualified a politician is? Politicians are elected not on 'merit' but how many votes they can get (or how well they spout slogans and craft policies that appeal to the electorate). How many people actually study the policies that politicians create aside from what is presented on the news. We need only look at the election of Donald Trump to show that we are not electing politicians based on 'merit' but on popularity. Hence I feel like for those saying parliamentary representation should depend on qualifications and ability ignore how politicians are even selected in the first place. I'm not saying that being a politician requires no ability, it's just that the notion that only a select few people are qualified to be able politicians is ridiculous. Of course this is different for jobs that require a unique skill-set such as surgery or nursing or engineering; merit is obvious the primary focus here along with the fact that these people aren't chosen to represent a balanced population but to perform their specific role (surgery, engineering a car etc).

So what can we do? Already we see that the governments of Canada and France (Macron) have chosen their cabinets to have a 50/50 split between women and men. I think it would be hard to argue that any of these women are less qualified (how could we even measure that), and it is better able to reflect the people that they represent.

[geminii]

Wow I went to bed and I woke up and now there's 34 replies to this post

So I agree with strawberries and also Sine and EEEEEEP, particularly these posts:

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 . 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

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

I'm not saying Donald Trump is a good guy. He's said some stupid things. But what I did see during those few months was the true nature of feminism - crying out 'sexism' when something doesn't go your way.

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.
I'm not a feminist because I'm not going to force you to do a job you don't want to do, just for the sake of having 'equal representation in politics'. 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).

[strawberries]

jw, do you guys believe in democracy?

Spoiler

yes, 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

[geminii]

jw, do you guys believe in democracy?

Spoiler

yes, 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

Hey strawberries,
Glad you agree! And dw sometimes it can be scary to saw what you believe publicly

[appleandbee]

jw, do you guys believe in democracy?

Yes I do prefer democracy as opposed to a technocratic system as it makes people feel engaged in the political system and represents the wishes of the people. If you read the previous posts and my post, you would realise why democracy isn't perfect.

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.

So sure, you may not vote for someone FOR their gender, such that you actively discriminating candidates because they are a man or a woman "(eg. I'm voting for this person because he is a man). But many people vote for someone BECAUSE of their gender, where subconscious gendered biases of who looks/comes across like politician or what is considered mainstream in society. Tackling implicit biases, entrenched stereotypes/social structures and microaggressions are as important as structural barriers. Also note that before you become a candidate on the ballot paper, you often have to go through various levels of pre-selections and deal with factions within the party where sexism and the toxic culture that surrounds it are more prevalent.

The point that which you and various members conceded, accepted and perpetuated the stereotypes, was the point at which your arguments fell.

[jamonwindeyer]

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

Really strongly disagree with this point. Hating on Donald Trump has nothing to do with hating on men - It's hating on Donald Trump. And the list of things he's done to warrant that sort of opinion doesn't need to be restated. Like, your school hating on Donald Trump doesn't scream "man hating" to me. I bet a lot of all male schools did it too. The guy is a joke - The fact he has been allowed to become US President isn't though, it's scary. But that's not for discussion now...

As someone who would argue the opposite point here, I wouldn't think a penis drawn on Pauline Hanson's head was there because she was a woman. Probably there because she is a racist, and a bigot, and lots of other much more nasty words that don't belong on a forum

Point being - I find it interesting you've interpreted hate on a single (highly controversial) male public figure as an attack on the male gender. I don't view it that way - Same as I don't view attacks on Pauline Hanson (there are just as many) as an attack on the female gender. I view them both as an attack on bigotry and inequality.

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.

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

Anyone who has taught you that feminism is about man-hating isn't a feminist - They are a misandrist. The two get confused a lot, that's a side effect of sensationalist media attention and probably a whole lot of other factors.


On how this relates to men vs women in politics - No one is saying that unqualified individuals should be brought into the political space to meet quotas. No one is suggesting men to vote for men, or women vote for women, or whatever (at least, I don't think anyone is suggesting that).

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? That's the distribution we are coming from - It takes a long time to reset social stigmas and fully remove any sort of bias from society, at least in my opinion. You can't immediately turn around things like this

[sudodds]

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 . 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

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.

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.

jw, do you guys believe in democracy?

Spoiler

yes, 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 defs get what you're saying here, and think this is an interesting point! Imo I don't think you're being ignorant at all For example, if I were an American I would have, hands down, voted for Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton (who personally I'm not a fan of - not because she is a woman and NOT because I support Trump in any way shape or form. Could go into this, but I think Jonathan Pie's video pretty much sums up everything for me, though in an admittedly harsh way haha - if you're interested take a look here Also sums up why I love threads like this - debate is great discussion gets my blood rushin - okay i'll stop... ). Overall, I identified much more strongly with Bernie Sanders' views and policies than I did with Clintons, irrespective of gender. However, that doesn't change my view that we should be, overall, striving for at the very least more equal representation, because as The Raven pointed out - women should be represented in policy discussion pertaining to women. Prime Ministers do have some say in who they choose to be part of their Cabinet for example, or who takes on various jobs - like I highly doubt Tony Abbott was elected to the position of Minister for Women... However overall your point is great, and just further demonstrates how broken representative democracy is in my opinion - because you're right, I'd never just vote for someone because they are a woman, however I still deeply want the system to be more inclusive of female voices. Wondering if maybe participatory democracy would be overall better at dealing with something like this - who knows Defs something to think about.

[Russ]

I think it takes a certain something to listen to people explaining that they feel women lack opportunities and support as a result of social structures and existing beliefs about gender roles and dismiss it by saying that people should just do what they want as a job and stop complaining.

Trying to present it as being against the spirit of 'equality' to redress disadvantage is also spurious for the same reason as above.

[Sine]

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.

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 

[jamonwindeyer]

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 

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.

[TheAspiringDoc]

Adjudication: 1st aff., 3rd neg., points  deducted for ad. Hom.

That aside, interesting debate of sorts. I reckon there are a lot more logical misconceptions (e.g. straw man(!!) and confirmation bias) at play than actual ethical disagreement here.

[geminii]

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

See, this is what everyone says (including the dictionary), but that was only relevant to first wave and second wave feminism. Now, it's women calling themselves victims at every opportunity. No 'female' traffic lights? Sexism. Calling women females? Sexism. Remember when there were not enough 'female' emojis? Sexism. Calling your daughter a princess? Sexism - what if she's trans?! You can't assume her gender! Don't promote gender stereotypes! (what are we supposed to call our children now? we can't even call them sons or daughters because God forbid we misgender them and they turn out to be trans or suffer permanent mental health issues because we pushed some 'gender stereotypes' on them). Interrupted a woman? You just mansplained. Sexism.

I'm a bit confused as to where you have noted an inconsistency?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Well, there's much less than 100% male, and people are having a hissy fit.