Should political representation be based on gender or ability? If gender then shouldn't we also have quotas for gender 'diverse' people? What about quotas based on race?
Where do you stop? Or should we have politicians that are smart regardless of what bits they have or haven't got? Or the colour of their skin? Or their gender preferences?
Whenarewethere said
10:00 AM Mar 24, 2021
On ability.
Unfortunately a lot of people's only ability is actually getting in power.
Tony LEE said
10:57 AM Mar 24, 2021
Size of their bank account and ego is far more 'important' than ability (define it in political context? You can't) or altruism
Plain Truth said
01:45 PM Mar 24, 2021
It is not what you know,it is who you know.
Buzz Lightbulb said
02:58 PM Mar 24, 2021
Bgt,
If I'm not mistaken you're referring to Liberal cabinet minister Karen Andrews raising the prospect of female MP quotas, says she's had a 'gutful'
The problem is not the numbers but the misogyny of politicians and others towards women. There needs to be a global change in attitude so that women aren't sexually harassed and treated as second class citizens. Comments from, our supposed leader, politicians such as, "ditch the witch" ; "lying cow"; "Blokes don't get it right all the time" ; "If a young girl is going to get so disgustingly drunk she can sleep with anybody, she could sleep with a spy and our national security is at risk,"; "don't say anything or it's the end of your career" ; and acts of MPs escorting prostitutes to prayer rooms ; mastubating on female MP's offices.
The next generation will see this as acceptable behaviour. To fix it " Women need to be elevated to positions of power to reduce male domination in all aspects of life. We must challenge the undermining of women's and girl's autonomy and value when boys exhibit it, to break the chain of passing on these negative attitudes."
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Wednesday 24th of March 2021 03:03:22 PM
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Wednesday 24th of March 2021 03:10:05 PM
bgt said
03:50 PM Mar 24, 2021
Buzz you sure got it wrong. It's an old question. One that all political parties talk about but do little to attract females into politics.
Bringing up current "allegations" just puts a political spin on the subject that isn't necessary.
The simple question, current allegations aside, is should there be quotes to get into politics? If so how do you determine quotas? By gender, race ability? Surely we can discuss this subject without starting finger pointing at allegations and current media gossip.
DMaxer said
09:13 AM Mar 25, 2021
It will be pretty difficult to commence a quota system when the party in question has a grass roots selection process. The branches determine whom their candidate will be, not the PM and his cabinet. Do you think it would not be difficult to tell an electorate that their representative will be a female to fit the quota when perhaps there might be an outstanding male candidate also in the running. Who will determine which electorates have female or male candidates.
Perhaps the more accurate test would be along the lines of who is making the selection, not whom is in contention.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Thursday 25th of March 2021 10:26:45 AM
-- Edited by DMaxer on Thursday 25th of March 2021 10:27:09 AM
Buzz Lightbulb said
05:27 PM Mar 25, 2021
Bgt:
Okay.
Then my answer is yes, the coalition should have quotas because they have not addressed inequality within their ranks and maybe quotas are the only way for that to happen.
Dmaxer:
Probably the better solution would be to have multiple candidates on their ticket rather than just one selected by a bunch of a few sycophants. Each could direct his or her preferences to the other coalition candidates thus, not only ensuring that their party gets the votes, but also the best person gets the job, in the opinions of the electorate voters.
peter67 said
06:04 PM Mar 25, 2021
bgt wrote:
Simple question.
Should political representation be based on gender or ability? If gender then shouldn't we also have quotas for gender 'diverse' people? What about quotas based on race?
Where do you stop? Or should we have politicians that are smart regardless of what bits they have or haven't got? Or the colour of their skin? Or their gender preferences?
I think the answer to your question is neither. Historically women have long had to fight men for simple freedoms we men have long taken as our right. As far as quota's go why not have at least 50% women in ALL public service areas, we've had and still have a majority of men come in to these positions with NO experience in their new portfolio and blunder along while they are learning. Why shouldn't a woman do as well or better?
bgt said
06:11 PM Mar 25, 2021
So what next? Gender quotas when there is now more than two gender? Gays? Racial background? Religion? I would rather have the "best" person in there regardless of their gender, colour, race, sexual preference etc. Oh yes. The left now insist gender in binary. So how does that work?
fwdoz said
09:01 PM Mar 25, 2021
Whatever happened to the term "the best person for the job".
I dont care if it is male, female or whatever...the main thing is that they are the best person for the job.
Good workplaces do this & also maintain excellent quotas & diversities. It starts at the top with the right people leading the way.
One particular public service workplace I was in had what was known as "inbreds". Buffoons hired by people they knew with absolutely no nous. Families, rellies never got there on merit.
erad said
09:18 PM Mar 25, 2021
Sadly, WE elect these people, WE choose the best person offered for the job (obviously not much of a choice most of the time). In most cases, it seems that it is not the best person elected, it is the least offensive person who gets the nod. I am sure there are some MPs in various governments who are dedicated and genuinely strive to properly represent their electorates, but you never hear about them - they get pushed aside so the cronies of the behind-the-scenes sponsors get the power and exercise it to their benefit, nit the benefit of the country. I will never stand for a parliamentary position because my ethics would not allow me to do so.
bgt said
09:58 PM Mar 25, 2021
erad you make a good point. "Why would you bother". There's two problems. First you have to find the right people. Next you have refocus politicians so that it's not one continual s**t fight. Less point scoring and no media fishing for the "got ya" moment.
Izabarack said
08:23 AM Mar 26, 2021
Research elsewhere comprehensively shows an improvement in the quality of those elected when a quota system is in place. Several clear examples of underperforming elected officials (males) were replaced when pre-selection has an extra dimension of gender, according to the research. The research also identified that the main problem a selection process in the absence of some attempt to have a balance that reflects the population gender ratio is the well described "boy's club" that actively discriminates against female candidates. The current issues in the Halls of Power would reduce markedly if more women were elected.
Izabarack said
08:27 AM Mar 26, 2021
bgt wrote:
Simple question.
Should political representation be based on gender or ability?
Regarding the question on ability, pushback against quotas instantly fails on the assumption that males are always better candidates because women do not have the abilities to represent a population that is slightly more female than male. The current crop of MPs, state or federal, clearly got pre-selection on factors other than ability.
TheHeaths said
09:39 AM Mar 26, 2021
bgt wrote:
So what next? Gender quotas when there is now more than two gender? Gays? Racial background? Religion? I would rather have the "best" person in there regardless of their gender, colour, race, sexual preference etc. Oh yes. The left now insist gender in binary. So how does that work?
As Izabarack says, if what we have now, based on no quotas, are those with the best abilities, heaven or whatever help us.
You will never get the best person for the job, as long as white middle class males, often with a law background, a union background, or both, refuse to accept that they dont know it all, and are not born to rule. Strange but true!
And refering back to your opening post, we could do worse than look at a more representative group in parliament. I suspect though your question was rhetorical.
-- Edited by TheHeaths on Friday 26th of March 2021 09:42:21 AM
bgt said
09:51 AM Mar 26, 2021
Izabarack "Regarding the question on ability, pushback against quotas instantly fails on the assumption that males are always better candidates because women do not have the abilities to represent a population that is slightly more female than male.". How do you make that 'assumption' from the question? It's a very simple question that you, and others, have tried to twist to suit your narrative. You are looking for PC in everything.
This is why many folks are turning off. The continual search for something to be offended by.
Politicians are simply a snap shot of the entire population. There will always be those who under perform. Those who trip up with a legal issue. And those who simply shouldn't be politicians. Australians are becoming a country of complainers. We find/look for faults in our politicians, sports persons, business leaders. Look in every part of society and you will find the same flaws in all of us. The media and politics can smell bloody and they circle like sharks. And don't tell me the oppositions doesn't have any dirty little secrets. Australians are very quick to throw out the law and find someone guilty regardless of what the police/law says.
Fox/Sky have highlighted an indigenous lady who went to Canberra a few days ago with a subject we all should be ashamed of. But not one media outlet covered her story. No it's more important to continue the trial by media and point scoring over allegations. We expect the law to protect us so why cant those who are alleged to have done something have the same protection?
I don't what to live in a country where someone can be found guilty by the media. I don't want to live in a country where you get your job based, not on your ability, but your gender, race, beliefs etc etc.
msg said
10:06 AM Mar 26, 2021
bgt wrote: "I don't what to live in a country where someone can be found guilty by the media. I don't want to live in a country where you get your job based, not on your ability, but your gender, race, beliefs etc etc."
bgt, that is where things are heading.
DMaxer said
10:24 AM Mar 26, 2021
Where you have leaders that refuse to answer questions, openly lie and be tricky, accept as gospel truth anything their side of politics say, then there is not much else for the media to do but speculate.
Perhaps if questions were answered without all the spin and blame shifting to the other side then there would not be much on which to speculate as you would know the facts.
bgt said
11:09 AM Mar 26, 2021
DMaxer hasn't politics always been about spin?
The thing is that while the current crap is going on folks are forgetting the floods. China. The virus to name just a few.
Leave everything to the police and get back to running the country.
msg said
02:34 PM Mar 26, 2021
I suspect bgt thats all it is. Spin. As long as the PM needs a distraction.
DMaxer said
03:16 PM Mar 26, 2021
I agree bgt, politics is all about spin and furious self promotion. However, that does not mean that integrity, truthfulness and transparency need to be a casualty.
I can remember when a cabinet minister lost his portfolio for failing to declare a Paddington Bear when coming through customs. Contrast that to this lot we have at the moment.
Buzz Lightbulb said
04:01 PM Mar 26, 2021
msg wrote:
bgt wrote: "I don't what to live in a country where someone can be found guilty by the media. I don't want to live in a country where you get your job based, not on your ability, but your gender, race, beliefs etc etc."
bgt, that is where things are heading.
I'd rather live in a country where there is equality rather than run by a bunch of misogynists.
bgt said
04:17 PM Mar 26, 2021
Buzz Lightbulb there is equality in Australia. It's in fact illegal to discriminate. But what is "equallity"? How do you apply it? It seems that no matter how you write the laws there is always grey areas. Or someone interpretation is flawed. Besides "equality" isn't possible. Men can't have babies. Men are simply stronger. So men do the heavy jobs. And if we apply "equallity" for all then should the AFL, NRL insist all teams have equal numbers of each sex? I apologize for those who identify as something else. Should we also apply the same quota to the military? My point is, and always has been, we ALL should by looking at ability. Over the past couple of years I've spent a lot of time in hospital. Met dozens of wonderful nurses. 90% female. Should we also have quotes in hospitals? The whole notion of quotes is ridiculous and is nothing more than a PC football.
Greg 1 said
05:30 PM Mar 26, 2021
There should not be quotas at all. Appointments should be made purely on the ability to do the job, not that there's too much ability amongst our pollies these days.
The fact that we don't have more women in politics could be that there just aren't enough women interested or perhaps they are just too smart to get involved.
Izabarack said
08:02 AM Mar 27, 2021
bgt wrote:
Politicians are simply a snap shot of the entire population.
Cannot agree with that assertion. The female population of Australia just exceeds 50%. Any individual politician is some distance from an determination of what is the Archetypal Australian. One way to test just how the current group of politicians matches a snap shot of the entire population would be to establish a distribution curve that represents the "entire population" then bump that curve against the distribution curve describing the group of current Australian Politicians. I confidently predict that there would be at least 2 Standard Deviations between the groups. The groups would differ most on dimensions of Gender, IQ, and Ableness (Ableness as a measure of disability). A single criterion of Gender imposed by a quota system to pre-selection would immediately address the outstanding difference between Politicians, as a group, and a snapshot description of the entire population.
Izabarack said
08:07 AM Mar 27, 2021
Greg 1 wrote:
Appointments should be made purely on the ability to do the job, ........
Should be? of course. So why is the per-selection process, in all political parties, distorted in favour of males? Evidence of the distortion is pretty obvious when the current discussion is about levelling the playing field for female candidates by introducing quotas as a way of regulating the system of per-selection.
"In Australia, a little over 14 per cent of engineering graduates are female."
Should we introduce quotas in our universities to produce more female engineering graduates? There is nothing stopping females from pursuing an engineering degree other than their academic performance.
If you want to know how quotas work in a negative sense, you only need to read up on Malaysia's Bumiputra policy.
Whenarewethere said
09:17 AM Mar 27, 2021
There are low numbers of male teachers in female schools & kindergartens.
Having said that a teacher I know who is at a girls school sometimes has to teach the class from the back of the classroom so he does not put himself in a position of being accused of possibly looking. As the students think it is funny not to wear undies & sit a certain way!
bgt said
09:48 AM Mar 27, 2021
There are folks in Australia promoting the concept of Gender Fluidity. These are the very same folks who say there should be a quota for females in politics. I'm confused.
Simple question.
Should political representation be based on gender or ability? If gender then shouldn't we also have quotas for gender 'diverse' people? What about quotas based on race?
Where do you stop? Or should we have politicians that are smart regardless of what bits they have or haven't got? Or the colour of their skin? Or their gender preferences?
On ability.
Unfortunately a lot of people's only ability is actually getting in power.
It is not what you know,it is who you know.
Bgt,
If I'm not mistaken you're referring to Liberal cabinet minister Karen Andrews raising the prospect of female MP quotas, says she's had a 'gutful'
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-23/karen-andrews-liberal-mp-gutful-female-quotas/100022676
The problem is not the numbers but the misogyny of politicians and others towards women. There needs to be a global change in attitude so that women aren't sexually harassed and treated as second class citizens. Comments from, our supposed leader, politicians such as, "ditch the witch" ; "lying cow"; "Blokes don't get it right all the time" ; "If a young girl is going to get so disgustingly drunk she can sleep with anybody, she could sleep with a spy and our national security is at risk,"; "don't say anything or it's the end of your career" ; and acts of MPs escorting prostitutes to prayer rooms ; mastubating on female MP's offices.
The next generation will see this as acceptable behaviour. To fix it " Women need to be elevated to positions of power to reduce male domination in all aspects of life. We must challenge the undermining of women's and girl's autonomy and value when boys exhibit it, to break the chain of passing on these negative attitudes."
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Wednesday 24th of March 2021 03:03:22 PM
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Wednesday 24th of March 2021 03:10:05 PM
It will be pretty difficult to commence a quota system when the party in question has a grass roots selection process. The branches determine whom their candidate will be, not the PM and his cabinet. Do you think it would not be difficult to tell an electorate that their representative will be a female to fit the quota when perhaps there might be an outstanding male candidate also in the running. Who will determine which electorates have female or male candidates.
Perhaps the more accurate test would be along the lines of who is making the selection, not whom is in contention.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Thursday 25th of March 2021 10:26:45 AM
-- Edited by DMaxer on Thursday 25th of March 2021 10:27:09 AM
Bgt:
Okay.
Then my answer is yes, the coalition should have quotas because they have not addressed inequality within their ranks and maybe quotas are the only way for that to happen.
Dmaxer:
Probably the better solution would be to have multiple candidates on their ticket rather than just one selected by a bunch of a few sycophants. Each could direct his or her preferences to the other coalition candidates thus, not only ensuring that their party gets the votes, but also the best person gets the job, in the opinions of the electorate voters.
I think the answer to your question is neither. Historically women have long had to fight men for simple freedoms we men have long taken as our right. As far as quota's go why not have at least 50% women in ALL public service areas, we've had and still have a majority of men come in to these positions with NO experience in their new portfolio and blunder along while they are learning. Why shouldn't a woman do as well or better?
I dont care if it is male, female or whatever...the main thing is that they are the best person for the job.
Good workplaces do this & also maintain excellent quotas & diversities. It starts at the top with the right people leading the way.
One particular public service workplace I was in had what was known as "inbreds". Buffoons hired by people they knew with absolutely no nous. Families, rellies never got there on merit.
Regarding the question on ability, pushback against quotas instantly fails on the assumption that males are always better candidates because women do not have the abilities to represent a population that is slightly more female than male. The current crop of MPs, state or federal, clearly got pre-selection on factors other than ability.
As Izabarack says, if what we have now, based on no quotas, are those with the best abilities, heaven or whatever help us.
You will never get the best person for the job, as long as white middle class males, often with a law background, a union background, or both, refuse to accept that they dont know it all, and are not born to rule. Strange but true!
And refering back to your opening post, we could do worse than look at a more representative group in parliament. I suspect though your question was rhetorical.
-- Edited by TheHeaths on Friday 26th of March 2021 09:42:21 AM
Izabarack "Regarding the question on ability, pushback against quotas instantly fails on the assumption that males are always better candidates because women do not have the abilities to represent a population that is slightly more female than male.". How do you make that 'assumption' from the question? It's a very simple question that you, and others, have tried to twist to suit your narrative. You are looking for PC in everything.
This is why many folks are turning off. The continual search for something to be offended by.
Politicians are simply a snap shot of the entire population. There will always be those who under perform. Those who trip up with a legal issue. And those who simply shouldn't be politicians. Australians are becoming a country of complainers. We find/look for faults in our politicians, sports persons, business leaders. Look in every part of society and you will find the same flaws in all of us. The media and politics can smell bloody and they circle like sharks. And don't tell me the oppositions doesn't have any dirty little secrets. Australians are very quick to throw out the law and find someone guilty regardless of what the police/law says.
Fox/Sky have highlighted an indigenous lady who went to Canberra a few days ago with a subject we all should be ashamed of. But not one media outlet covered her story. No it's more important to continue the trial by media and point scoring over allegations. We expect the law to protect us so why cant those who are alleged to have done something have the same protection?
I don't what to live in a country where someone can be found guilty by the media. I don't want to live in a country where you get your job based, not on your ability, but your gender, race, beliefs etc etc.
bgt wrote:
"I don't what to live in a country where someone can be found guilty by the media. I don't want to live in a country where you get your job based, not on your ability, but your gender, race, beliefs etc etc."
bgt, that is where things are heading.
Where you have leaders that refuse to answer questions, openly lie and be tricky, accept as gospel truth anything their side of politics say, then there is not much else for the media to do but speculate.
Perhaps if questions were answered without all the spin and blame shifting to the other side then there would not be much on which to speculate as you would know the facts.
I agree bgt, politics is all about spin and furious self promotion. However, that does not mean that integrity, truthfulness and transparency need to be a casualty.
I can remember when a cabinet minister lost his portfolio for failing to declare a Paddington Bear when coming through customs. Contrast that to this lot we have at the moment.
I'd rather live in a country where there is equality rather than run by a bunch of misogynists.
Cannot agree with that assertion. The female population of Australia just exceeds 50%. Any individual politician is some distance from an determination of what is the Archetypal Australian. One way to test just how the current group of politicians matches a snap shot of the entire population would be to establish a distribution curve that represents the "entire population" then bump that curve against the distribution curve describing the group of current Australian Politicians. I confidently predict that there would be at least 2 Standard Deviations between the groups. The groups would differ most on dimensions of Gender, IQ, and Ableness (Ableness as a measure of disability). A single criterion of Gender imposed by a quota system to pre-selection would immediately address the outstanding difference between Politicians, as a group, and a snapshot description of the entire population.
Should be? of course. So why is the per-selection process, in all political parties, distorted in favour of males? Evidence of the distortion is pretty obvious when the current discussion is about levelling the playing field for female candidates by introducing quotas as a way of regulating the system of per-selection.
https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/engineering-gender-equality
"In Australia, a little over 14 per cent of engineering graduates are female."
Should we introduce quotas in our universities to produce more female engineering graduates? There is nothing stopping females from pursuing an engineering degree other than their academic performance.
If you want to know how quotas work in a negative sense, you only need to read up on Malaysia's Bumiputra policy.
There are low numbers of male teachers in female schools & kindergartens.
Having said that a teacher I know who is at a girls school sometimes has to teach the class from the back of the classroom so he does not put himself in a position of being accused of possibly looking. As the students think it is funny not to wear undies & sit a certain way!