Gender quotas

[Azula]

In public bodies, do you believe that there should be a rule that at least 50% of the representatives should be females? I do. In fact, I think that at least 60% should be females, because:

There are more females than males in society.

Females are generally having lower income and social status than males.

Females are more exposed to violence and illicit sexual behaviour from males.

In some areas, for example sexual crime or gender discrimination cases, I believe that the judges, the attourneys, the jurors and the attendants (except for the defendant) should consist solely of females.

I think that is important as males have a track record of not taking women's issues seriously.

[Nox]

Might be a bit over the top but I see your point

[Azula]

If the male networks which tend to form aren't uprooted, females who are engaged would be forced to adapt to an environment established by males, thus upholding the patriarchy. We need to create female-dominated areas in order to break the patriarchy and it's formal and informal structures.

[Luc]

A better way of ensuring everyone is represented would be by not having representatives. Direct Democracy instead of representative democracy.
Destroy the state and replace it with directly democratic Communes and Councils.

Everyone shall be a reprensentative of themselves.

[Azula]

A better way of ensuring everyone is represented would be by not having representatives. Direct Democracy instead of representative democracy.
Destroy the state and replace it with directly democratic Communes and Councils.

Everyone shall be a reprensentative of themselves.

So everyone should vote in trials against rapists? Is that not hurtful against the integrity of those involved?

[gendoikari]

In public bodies, do you believe that there should be a rule that at least 50% of the representatives should be females? I do. In fact, I think that at least 60% should be females, because:

There are more females than males in society.

Females are generally having lower income and social status than males.

Females are more exposed to violence and illicit sexual behaviour from males.

In some areas, for example sexual crime or gender discrimination cases, I believe that the judges, the attourneys, the jurors and the attendants (except for the defendant) should consist solely of females.

I think that is important as males have a track record of not taking women's issues seriously.

I don't think quotas are a good idea. Any system that tells you, you must have X number of [Insert minority here] is inherently going to be prejudice against those not included in the quota and are in fact not that efficient in ensuring the right person is picked for the job because the local population might vary slightly or greatly from the respective average, and thus the system in itself becomes locally prejudice.

No, a much better idea is to root out the cause of the problem, racism, sexism, and the other prejudices that keep people down. After that then quotas seem kind of pointless.

I mean who the fuck cares if your white, black, male or female, its your ability that matters.

[Luc]

So everyone should vote in trials against rapists? Is that not hurtful against the integrity of those involved?

I don't know how the "Justice" system will be carried out. I was talking about government; management of the economy. Good point though.

[Azula]

I don't think quotas are a good idea. Any system that tells you, you must have X number of [Insert minority here] is inherently going to be prejudice against those not included in the quota and are in fact not that efficient in ensuring the right person is picked for the job because the local population might vary slightly or greatly from the respective average, and thus the system in itself becomes locally prejudice.

No, a much better idea is to root out the cause of the problem, racism, sexism, and the other prejudices that keep people down. After that then quotas seem kind of pointless.

I mean who the fuck cares if your white, black, male or female, its your ability that matters.

And you believe sexism, racism and homophobia would vanish over one night? The revolution is just the beginning. There would be needed years of struggle to eliminate these forces.

Affirmative action is one way to rub the faces of reactionaries and call them out on their opinions.

So, you believe that there are not as many competent females as males? Is that what you are implying? You know that is a sexist position?

[gendoikari]

And you believe sexism, racism and homophobia would vanish over one night? The revolution is just the beginning. There would be needed years of struggle to eliminate these forces.

Affirmative action is one way to rub the faces of reactionaries and call them out on their opinions.

So, you believe that there are not as many competent females as males? Is that what you are implying? You know that is a sexist position?

No but you can't put a prejudice on one sector to make up for one on another. That's just reverse prejudice. Like your having an all female jury, do you really think they're going to be fair to a man? What makes women so much more fair and balanced than men?

So, you believe that there are not as many competent females as males? Is that what you are implying? You know that is a sexist position?

No I'm saying whether or not your male of female should have NO bearing on considerations for any job. To add one, like you are suggesting, is by definition sexism.

[Azula]

No but you can't put a prejudice on one sector to make up for one on another. That's just reverse prejudice. Like your having an all female jury, do you really think they're going to be fair to a man? What makes women so much more fair and balanced than men?

Nothing. But male lawyers tend to be more lenient towards the oppressors (i.e rapists) than to the oppressed (i.e rape victims). Only a few gender discrimination cases for example are ever leading to results.

I prefer oppression against the oppressors. Do you?

[pluckedflowers]

I'm saying whether or not your male of female should have NO bearing on considerations for any job. To add one, like you are suggesting, is by definition sexism.

No, you're saying we should ignore the fact that gender ALREADY bears on considerations of employment, income, and representation and dismiss quotas as though they were being introduced into some utopian vacuum.

[gendoikari]

Nothing. But male lawyers tend to be more lenient towards the oppressors (i.e rapists) than to the oppressed (i.e rape victims). Only a few gender discrimination cases for example are ever leading to results.

And you don't think there are female lawyers loosing these cases too? The reason few gender discrimination cases ever bear fruit isn't that it was a male lawyer in the case, it's that it usually comes down to word v word. In any case you can't just put all women on the jury, as that would be discrimination against men. Now in the cases where the guy is actually innocent how many times do you think an all women jury would falsely convict him v. an evenly selected jury of peers. I.E. one representative of everyone. Because more often than not when you have charged jury's like that facts and evidence don't often matter. History has prooven that with all white jury's against Black people or people who killed black people in the 60's. To do what you are saying is sexism of the highest order. it's just sexism against men, or does that make it okay in your book?

No, you're saying we should ignore the fact that gender ALREADY bears on considerations of employment, income, and representation and dismiss quotas as though they were being introduced into some utopian vacuum.

and turning around and doing the same thing is right? Look, yeah gender discrimination is bad, it's gotten better over the years but it's still there. doesn't give anyone the right to turn around and be prejudice themselves.

[pluckedflowers]

To do what you are saying is sexism of the highest order. it's just sexism against men, or does that make it okay in your book?

No, for fuck's sake, it isn't. Sexism is a systematic reality that pervades every aspect of society. Creating institutional rules to combat some manifestations of that reality is not fucking sexism.

and turning around and doing the same thing is right? Look, yeah gender discrimination is bad, it's gotten better over the years but it's still there. doesn't give anyone the right to turn around and be prejudice themselves.

First of all, as I've just explained, we aren't talking about "turning around and doing the same thing." We aren't talking about creating a history of thousands of years of pervasive oppression against women. That's what sexism is, that's what's being fought. And if it is necessary to institute some new rules that privilege women as part of that fight, then yes, we should.

[Kotze]

Wrote a bit about integrating quotas into elections here.

[Luc]

First of all, as I've just explained, we aren't talking about "turning around and doing the same thing." We aren't talking about creating a history of thousands of years of pervasive oppression against women. That's what sexism is, that's what's being fought. And if it is necessary to institute some new rules that privilege women as part of that fight, then yes, we should.

I must protest. Sexism isn't the systematic oppression of woman. It is the judging of individuals based on their sex. It effects all 3 sexs: Females, Hermaphrodites, and Males. Sexism must be destroyed by the destruction of priviledge and treatment based on sex. Making women a majority doesn't stop sexism or even help stop sexism, by doing this we are assuming that they are somehow better than males and aren't even considering the Hermaphrodites. We are infact switching it around and discriminating against males, still forgetting Hermaphrodites, and priviledging females. It is sexist. What you were referring to is Patriarchy, just one of the diseases in Sexism.

[pluckedflowers]

I must protest. Sexism isn't the systematic oppression of woman. It is the judging of individuals based on their sex. It effects all 3 sexs: Females, Hermaphrodites, and Males. Sexism must be destroyed by the destruction of priviledge and treatment based on sex. Making women a majority doesn't stop sexism or even help stop sexism, by doing this we are assuming that they are somehow better than males and aren't even considering the Hermaphrodites. We are infact switching it around and discriminating against males, still forgetting Hermaphrodites, and priviledging females. It is sexist. What you were referring to is Patriarchy, just one of the diseases in Sexism.

I'm sorry, but aside from your appropriate reminder that other genders are also affected by sexism (though you come a little too close to suggesting that men are also victims), this strikes me as an idealist account. When we look at the actual historical reality of the "judging of individuals based on their sex," we see patriarchy. Sexism cannot be divorced from this historical reality and suggesting that concrete measures to confront this historical reality are themselves sexist is simply ridiculous. Women do not demand gender quotas because they think they are better than men but because they are seeking to challenge the actual distribution of power in the world as it exists. The goal of ending all judgement of individuals based on sex is a fine one, but it means nothing if we refuse to take concrete steps to realize it. And that will require the curtailing of the power of men and the empowerment of women and people of other genders.

The same can be said for the oppression of workers. Should we also shrink from actually attacking the power of the capitalists as it is currently constituted because we don't want to be classist?

[gendoikari]

First of all, as I've just explained, we aren't talking about "turning around and doing the same thing." We aren't talking about creating a history of thousands of years of pervasive oppression against women. That's what sexism is, that's what's being fought. And if it is necessary to institute some new rules that privilege women as part of that fight, then yes, we should.

In essence you are making being female a requirement to get a job, even if only a percent. How is making being female a requirement, anything bust sexism? If we instituted a requirement that 50% of the workforce be male would you not consider that sexism? because I would.

[pluckedflowers]

In essence you are making being female a requirement to get a job, even if only a percent. How is making being female a requirement, anything bust sexism? If we instituted a requirement that 50% of the workforce be male would you not consider that sexism? because I would.

You seem to be ignoring what I've written. What is at stake here is not some abstract notion of "sexism," but the actually existing distribution of power in the world that favors men. I don't care about the Platonic form of sexual justice. I'm interested in dealing with the problems of the world we actually live in. In this world, the distribution of power favors men. To fix this problem, some of that power is going to have to be taken away. I can understand why this would be controversial to some people, but I'm rather baffled that a leftist would have any problem understanding it. Should we also take care not to expropriate private property because doing so would be "theft"?

[gendoikari]

The same can be said for the oppression of workers. Should we also shrink from actually attacking the power of the capitalists as it is currently constituted because we don't want to be classist?

Um... not to rain on your parade but what you are suggesting with sexism, in parallel with the oppression of the proletariat, would be something more akin to a capitalist society with a welfare state. it's just putting a bandaid on a system that needs a cure. you aren't attacking the root causes, in fact your making it worse and being sexist yourself because you feel you deserve the right because you have been oppressed yourself. Well guess what, there is no justification for prejudice, at all, ever. Because once you start down that path all you've done is changed who is being repressed and have become the new repressors. if you really want equality go to the root of the problem, sexists themselves.

[Luc]

First: I agree with the above too
Second: I couldn't get the quotes working, sorry!

"I'm sorry, but aside from your appropriate reminder that other genders are also affected by sexism (though you come a little too close to suggesting that men are also victims), this strikes me as an idealist account. When we look at the actual historical reality of the "judging of individuals based on their sex," we see patriarchy."

I did forget to mention that although males are somtimes victims of sexism it is a alot smaller compared to the amount females have suffered and out of the 3 males are the least affected. And for that I am also sorry. It may of come across as diminishing the female strife. I agree; I can't, haven't, and won't argue against emprical evidence.

"Sexism cannot be divorced from this historical reality and suggesting that concrete measures to confront this historical reality are themselves sexist is simply ridiculous. Women do not demand gender quotas because they think they are better than men but because they are seeking to challenge the actual distribution of power in the world as it exists. The goal of ending all judgement of individuals based on sex is a fine one, but it means nothing if we refuse to take concrete steps to realize it."

I agree with the first bit but here is where I disagree:
1. these (the quotas) are concrete measures
2. they are not sexist
I am pretty sure these are not concrete measures, these are just abstract rules. Does a constitution ensure rights? No it doesn't, human rights are protected by the population; once the government tries to infringe upon them the masses protest, riot, and threaten the state with revolution. Similarily, sex equality will only be ensured when the population violently opposes all forms of sexism. This bit might be because we are of different ideaologies though.
I believe they are sexist because we are judging the males because of their sex. If I am not mistaken the main reasoning behind to the quotas was that apparently males don't take female's issues seriously enough. Why? because they are males? And since when did being a female determine whether or not a female cared about female issues? Hilary Clinton, Sarah Palin, the tea party woman whose's name escapes me atm... are all females but they don't seem to care about the female strife.

I agree, I only thought that some individuals think this and Azula reminded me of this. Not that I think Azula thinks this, I cannot possibly know that. If I miss interpreted then I am sorry.

"And that will require the curtailing of the power of men and the empowerment of women and people of other genders."

Again I disagree. This time because of method. Instead of equalizing 3 sexes I seek to abolish Men's, Women's, Hermaphrodites's rights and replacing them with neutral Human's Rights. Since sex has nothing to do with how you should be treated. But upon writing this I think I am just using different words, I will reflect more on this.

"The same can be said for the oppression of workers. Should we also shrink from actually attacking the power of the capitalists as it is currently constituted because we don't want to be classist?"

Nope
We attack capitalism because producing is a social action but currently it is for private ends. So we wish to make it a social action for a social end. But this could also be because of Ideaology.