User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 44

  1. #11
    Senior Member Rebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4sop
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,505

    Default

    I just realized that whatever I have learned in my college classes, the countries we have studied, are countries that are most important to American interests. We have never even mentioned Sweden, though I do know where it is on the map .

  2. #12
    Supreme Allied Commander Take Five's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    925

    Default

    I think such a rule would be resisted by most men, and I would expect some women to be against it as well, based on the idea that such quotas are inherently undemocratic.

    Moreover raising such a rule brings up some serious practical concerns. Should current officeholders be kicked out and replaced? Who should get kicked out? Or should the political body just be enlarged with more seats, all filled by women?

    Also I'm not sure I buy into the idea that all decisions are affected by a gender bias (or whatever it's called when decisions are made by a majority of men). But even assuming it's true, do we really need a equal representation to fix it? Is it even a problem? If the feminist approach to any issue is reasonably sound, then only one or a few voices should be able to convince others. If one says no, the men will just vote in party line, it is also true that the newly mandated quota of women only serve to form a new party line.

    I just think the costs of a revolutionary change would be greater than the benefits. Gradual change is occurring anyway, so I really think great minds should be set to solve other more pressing concerns.
    Johari Nohari

    "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. "--Niccolo Machiavelli

  3. #13
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Rebe, this subject has already been covered in this recently resurrected thread: http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ap-widens.html

    Suffice to say that the entire idea is incompatible with American institutions...and I think that's a damn good thing.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Rebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4sop
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,505

    Default

    oh okay ^ someone merge the threads?

    just because it is incompatible with the existing american institutions, should it be thrown out immediately? what good are institutions if it doesn't reform to the times and the contemporary issues. india is a democracy and they have reservations for minorities. their western-influenced institutions are still strong and still supported by the majority as legitimate.

  5. #15
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebe View Post
    just because it is incompatible with the existing american institutions, should it be thrown out immediately?
    1.) Barring a Constitutional amendment, yes.

    2.) More generally, the idea should be immediately discarded by anyone who cares about the accountability of representatives more than the genitals of representatives.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    I dont know, if the "big alternative" from the middle east makes in roads with the help of liberalism we could be looking at quotas for women in public let alone politics or government.

  7. #17
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Bad idea - period!

  8. #18
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    I'm with local jesus on this... it's just another form of discrimination and that's exactly whot we're trying to prevent.

    The reason why there's alot of women lacking in many job areas, is mostly due to interest and how long it took for them to be allowed into them. Law schools didn't allow women into them until relatively recently, and even then, it was only a trickle at the time, not even remotely an equal amount. A large portion of politicians are ex-lawyers or judges, or corporate CEO's and so on. These positions weren't open to women in large enough numbers previously which'll just mean that there's just flat out not as many women actually APPLYING for the positions.

    WTH's the point of giving us a free ride? Well only 15 of yeu applied but we reserved 100 seats for yeu! Guess yeu all get in, despite the fact that noone voted for yeu because most of yeu were unqualified or idiots, like the rest of the politicians who don't get voted in. But we'll just override whot the voters go for because yeu were born a certain way.

    Uhm... no. If I get a job, especially one like that, I want it to be because it was EARNED.

    If yeu give out jobs like that and FORCE them to go to a minority of applicants, all that's going to mean is that someone who was more qualified is going to be passed over simply because of their birth. Which's exactly whot yeu're trying to prevent isn't it?

    Flipping the mistake 180 degrees to the other side isn't going to fix anything. Yeu're just prolonging the problem.

    Naturally, women will show up in politics more frequently. It'll take time for voters to get used to the idea, but it is slowly catching on. It'll take time for there to be enough women from households that are political to get into the politics career because of the way things have been set up for so long. And it'll take time for things to shift from none applying for similar schooling, to the stuff they need.

    This's already happening, but it's not an instantaneous process. Yeu don't flick a switch and go "here's some rights go have fun!". It's going to take several generations for things to catch up... when the right to be elected was offered, their parents and schools discouraged women, blacks, etc, from going to courses or applying for the vote. The next generation, circa 20 years later, has those who wanted such encouraging their own children to not make the same mistakes, but there's also some who grew up with such ideals who shall hold onto them as well, so it won't be a perfect case yet, especially since they know that the older population is still the majority of vote holders, who won't elect their kids sadly.

    Then toss in that to go into politics, yeu need to be almost guaranteed to be at least 40-60, because people won't even consider yeu if yeu don't have enough experience... meaning that the vast majority of women, blacks, etc, flat out don't have that experience yet because they weren't allowed to start until recently.

    Give it another 40 years and the numbers will naturally fix themselves. Trying to force the matter right now will only make the problem worse. Yeu don't NEED things to turn around as fast as yeu think... and forcing it won't help. It'll mean that people will be pissed that someone got "elected" who noone voted for, or that they weren't given a choice on their representation, or that someone unqualified got in simply because there wasn't any opposition. This goes against the whole point of representation.

    Let it work at its' natural pace. Yes, it sucks right now. But it will turn around. It takes time for these things to happen, and it's going to take decades for such to occur.

    Yeu're doing everyone a great disservice by handing over power for free against the voters will. Even IF these women get into power, if they only got it by being handed it for free, they won't have any true say, the rest of the legislation will ignore them because they didn't earn their place. Which'll just make it that much harder for the ones that're qualified and fighting for position to get into where they are, when they're viewed as being "handed" their position, no matter how hard they worked for it.

    NO.

    I'm totally against it, because this's only going to slow things down, make the problem worse, or flip it 180. Regardless of how it turns out, it will not solve gender inequality, it will prolong it.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Daedalus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebe View Post
    Do you think that would be a good idea? To make it a law that seats be reserved for women.

    When I first heard of this method, I was dead set against it. But the more I think about it, the more I think it might not be such a bad, crazy idea.

    Yes, yes, what's wrong with women that we can't get ourselves voted?
    But, it'd be this sweeping, radical change and it'd happen basically overnight. There would be problems, of course, but wouldn't it be better to radically change the 'stereotypes' and the system rather than wait a couple more decades for the old, white men dominated government to be slightly different.

    When this came up in class, I said that why is gender the most prominent issue when it comes to government representation? What about religion? I am so sick of public officials mentioning God in their public speeches. I am so sick of policies being determined/influenced by God. What about race? What if Asians want .5 representation? Yes, gender is 50/50 but does that necessarily mean it should be the only factor in representation? I don't see myself primarily as a woman, I see myself as a Democrat, as an atheist, as Asian...what does being a woman really matter in politics?

    Recently, India is pushing for 1/3 of government seats for women - their women are very behind in almost every sector. And their minorities are outraged.

    My professor said the Nordic countries have the highest rate of women in office and that is because they have a quota. I could be wrong. Rwanda has a quota and is up there on the list.

    What do you think?

    I would say some form of Quota for women would be good. maybe 1/3rd is not bad at all. because, even though there is apparent equality in the us elections, we did notice the antipathy some right wingers had against a woman candidate...especially one who supported women's rights (im not talking about an anti-feminist candidate like Palin). What are the chances of a secular (i mean separation of church and state advocating) woman running for election in the midwest?. almost 0



    Quote Originally Posted by Rebe View Post
    Recently, India is pushing for 1/3 of government seats for women - their women are very behind in almost every sector. And their minorities are outraged.

    I would have to disagree with this though, India had the world's second woman head of state.

    and the current president is a Woman too. Furthermore, if i rem correctly, the current head of state(prime minister) is a minority (Sikh) and the ex president was a minority too(muslim)

    contrary to popular belief, there has been more ethnic and gender diversity amongst Indian heads of states than amongst American or European countries.
    Extraverted - 25 Introverted - 75
    Sensing - 0 Intuition - 100
    Thinking - 63 Feeling - 37
    Judging - 63 Perceiving - 37
    ______________________________________


    It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebe View Post
    Do you think that would be a good idea? To make it a law that seats be reserved for women.
    I would like to see a law that requires competence in government officials (regardless of race, gender, disability, age etc). Quotas really bother me because I think the best person for the job should get the job period. That being said I'm not blind to the fact that we live in a very screwed up world and prejudice and discrimination do exist in many countries. So I think blind hirings would be better. Essentially everything accept the age, race, and gender of the potential applicants are submitted to a hiring committee that will then select a group of the most qualified applicants based on their qualifications alone. Interviews could be conducted blindly, we definitely have enough technology to ensure that nobody on the hiring committee knows the race, age, and gender of an applicant (questions could be ask via chat online or relayed via a 3rd party)... whatever, I'm sure people more creative than me could figure out a way to make something like that work for most situations.

    Obviously there are situations where security clearances etc need to be obtained and something like what was mentioned above wouldn't be that easy to implement, however it could still be done with enough creativity to at least ensure that the selection of applicants from a possible pool of applicants is blind - thereby making whatever prejudices that may or may not be occurring during applicant selection a lot more obvious and easier to deal with.

    Either way I doubt we'll see systems like that any time soon. People don't like to change and would rather legislate in quotas than equality and common sense. Such goes life in this world we live in.

Similar Threads

  1. Female Soldiers Complete Ranger School in Major Milestone for Women in Combat
    By Crabs in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-26-2015, 04:31 PM
  2. DNA database for Newborns in USA?
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-10-2008, 12:20 AM
  3. Women in Leadership
    By armstrongvk12 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-22-2008, 06:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO