The illogical hypocrisy of 50/50 gender employment

[Arwon]

The thing with parliamentarians is that there are thousands of people who could do that job. There is no such thing as a ranked meritocracy in such high prestige, limited supply public positions. Everyone is always being selected for some intangible criteria that is subjective and inherently not definable by merit.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

May I ask why?

What usually happens with girls around that age? At that time it's more appropriate to have a female gym teacher, given that at most schools gym class involves wearing less clothing than usual, not to mention the shower room issue.

And in a world where there is a very sizeable skew against women in politics (less than 20% in the US house, 20% in the Senate, 26% in the Canadian house, etc), and where women running in politics get treated demonstrably differently from male candidate (including extensive attacks based on physical appearance), THAT doesn't exist.

Usually. However, I doubt any female candidate in our recent federal election faced as much criticism about their appearance as Justin Trudeau did. Those "nice hair" attack ads were on TV for months before the writ was dropped.

Ironic, given that Harper employed a makeup artist and personal groomer on the taxpayer's dime.

So what about the "equal opportunity" of these men who were pushed aside only because their gender is over-represented? What an inconsistent opinion.

It's customary to do what is called a "cabinet shuffle" once or twice a year in Canadian politics. Any minister who isn't cutting it in their position can be moved to another portfolio or dropped from cabinet entirely. Others can be promoted from the middle and back benches into cabinet. Some of those will probably be men. So just because they didn't get into cabinet right away, that doesn't mean they never will.

 

[JollyRoger]

I like the 50% hypocrisy/50% illogic going on in parts of this thread.

 

[Borachio]

Men are going to prefer certain types of jobs and women are going ot prefer certain types of jobs.

You see, I never understand why this is so.

To me, a job is simply a job. It either needs doing or it doesn't. I can't see it makes any difference who does it.

And I don't understand why everyone else doesn't feel the same way.

 

[warpus]

It's also worth nothing noting that those who did not make the cabinet continue to represent Canadians in their role as ministers.

edit: *facepalm*

 

[Manfred Belheim]

What usually happens with girls around that age? At that time it's more appropriate to have a female gym teacher, given that at most schools gym class involves wearing less clothing than usual, not to mention the shower room issue.

Wow. I don't know how things work in Canada, but our PE teachers didn't actually come into the showers with us.

 

[Ryika]

What usually happens with girls around that age? At that time it's more appropriate to have a female gym teacher, given that at most schools gym class involves wearing less clothing than usual, not to mention the shower room issue.

If we want people to be seen as people and not as genders, none of these should be an issue. I don't see why a properly educated, male teacher should not be able to do just the same job as a female teacher would be able to do.

But do I understand that correctly: You have gender-separated gym classes over there?

It's customary to do what is called a "cabinet shuffle" once or twice a year in Canadian politics. Any minister who isn't cutting it in their position can be moved to another portfolio or dropped from cabinet entirely. Others can be promoted from the middle and back benches into cabinet. Some of those will probably be men. So just because they didn't get into cabinet right away, that doesn't mean they never will.

But if the 50/50 quota is dropped in the middle of the year then it was useless to begin with. If it's uphold, then the individuals in the group that is bigger in numbers still get the short end of the stick.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think that many MRAs push for 50/50 results in family law matters.

 

[Ryika]

I think that many MRAs push for 50/50 results in family law matters.

And surely you can give examples?

The ones I know push for an equal starting point from which the opinions and circumstances of both partners are used to decide what to do. Which would very likely result in a higher percentage of women having custody.

 

[JollyRoger]

That is already the law is written. Men probably get the starting edge because of the gender imbalance in judgeships.

 

[Hygro]

http://5050initiative.org/about

"setting a goal of equal participation for women and men on award show juries, boards of directors, and event panels and speaker lineups."

http://5050x2020.org

"aims to end the gender inequality found within corporate leadership [...] a campaign that seeks to establish an equal number of women and men within leadership roles by the year 2020."

 

[JollyRoger]

The ones I know push for an equal starting point

Sounds like most feminists on many issues.

 

[brennan]

Equal opportunity doesn't mean "nothing stops you".

It means two equal candidates whose only difference is gender would have equal odds of making it in politics. THAT is equal opportunities.

You are assuming that gender itself makes no difference, which is manifestly untrue. Peoples' behaviours, talents, preferences and goals are influenced by gender, thus equal opportunity cannot be expected to result in equality of outcomes.

I'd just like to point out in addition that yet another thread is being trolled by slurs and snide comments about 'MRA's'. Anyone still think there's no reason why the Men's Rights Movement has issues with feminism?

 

[.Shane.]

You could at the least have clicked on the link in the OP.

Mainstream feminism is factually and demonstrably trying to push for 50/50 in the workplace.

That doesn't disagree w/ what I said and neither does the article:

"I don't believe that people should be elected to parliament purely because of their gender, but if MPs were elected on merit there would surely be far more female MPs representing us today!"

Essentially, they want more women to be represented and they should be.

 

[JollyRoger]

thus equal opportunity cannot be expected to result in equality of outcomes.

Which needs to be considered before spouting off about family law outcomes.

 

[brennan]

That's a profoundly silly comment. Half the MRM is fathers who would prefer to be with their children but have been denied the same parental rights as the mother from the word go by legislation or legal precedent. How you can suggest any sort of equal opportunity applies baffles me.

 

[Hygro]

half the feminist movement would prefer to either be in power or want their own in power and have been denied by first word of legislation and later just by social precedent

 

[JollyRoger]

That's a profoundly silly comment. Half the MRM is fathers who would prefer to be with their children but have been denied the same parental rights as the mother from the word go by legislation or legal precedent. How you can suggest any sort of equal opportunity applies baffles me.

Most modern statutes and legal decisions on the subject are gender neutral, so it is equal opportunity. Except for the gender-of-the-judge part which is more likely to skew male. It is profoundly silly to think men are being denied equal opportunity merely because the results do not end up equal.

 

[Nexlev]

Every identity politics group confuses equality of opportunity and equality of results.

Unequal results are often cited as proof of inequality of opportunity.

 

[Evie]

You are assuming that gender itself makes no difference, which is manifestly untrue. Peoples' behaviours, talents, preferences and goals are influenced by gender, thus equal opportunity cannot be expected to result in equality of outcomes.

Yes, because the assumption "Women are just less suited to politics" is so much more rational than "politics is still largely a boy-run club that heavily favor males"