Sort of explained it, what it didn't explain was why people would really care? Perhaps those women took one good look at the dry dull life of the academic and went the other way, perhaps they saw parenthood as a more interesting and rewarding ideal.
Jess Door wrote: meatrace wrote:
I'll be g+&@~*ned if I know why, whether it's nature, nurture or both, but specifically when it comes to postgraduate studies, the numbers of women studying science, technology and engineering precipitously drops.
one possible partial explanation FWIW I think everyone should stop breeding.
Especially women :)
Sorry Meat, can't think of why that would be a universally good idea.
Shifty wrote: Sorry Meat, can't think of why that would be a universally good idea. I can't think of why it wouldn't.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Typical politician. Course she is on a tightrope there, forced with addressing the failings of society, and yet still appease her mostly male co-workers and campaign contributes. What's interesting is the comments. Pretty telling really. Actually, I'm pretty sure that the BBC is an extremely feminist organization in media, and that type of political idea would be extremely against the grain. I found it pretty telling that the older woman with the actual experience was rebuking the one for quota and forcing people to hire undesirable employees based on gender from an position of experience and practical wisdom, whereas the other position basically lacked any reasoning besides we want. I would be interested in hearing why you feel the way you do though, and what comments you are referring to. Any of the YouTube comments.
As to Edwina Currie's remarks, you have to remember her former party is currently in power, and I believe, though I'm not entirely sure, that she served under Thacher, so that whole women's lib thing was in full swing thirty years ago. The numbers are still pretty bad though, and she can't exactly blame government, or say anything that might hurt her former party's supporters (most of whom are conservatives, though hardly as right wing as the Republicans). It's clear that she's not happy that things haven't improved much but she can't exactly support a quota so instead she's saying that employers need to be encouraged . . . but she doesn't really give many answers as how to do that. That's why my "typical politician" comment.
I'm not a fan of quotas either for the record. But I'd be willing to swallow that pill for public sector jobs. I don't see why political parties can't be forced to nominate 50% female candidates. I'd suspect that it wouldn't level the playing field for a few cycles but I think it might translate into the private sector better if government breaks up the old boy's club.
meatrace wrote: I can't think of why it wouldn't. Then I feel very very sorry for you.
Alice Margatroid wrote: I can't for the life of me find the article, but I did read a story about a higher education institution that worked on changing its manner of approaching, teaching, and mentoring female STEM students (I believe it was computer science, but I can't be sure) - and they now have a very good ratio of men to women in the program.
Also, How It Works and Girl Toys/Boy Toys.
I'm not entirely sure this applies to your point or not, but it's what I imidately thought of for some reason.
Shifty wrote: meatrace wrote: I can't think of why it wouldn't. Then I feel very very sorry for you. I didn't say stop having recreational sex, I said stop breeding, i.e. procreating.
Delusions of Gender is a good book on that sort of topic if you're interested, Guy (and anyone else). It also talks a fair bit about all sorts of reasons why there aren't more women in STEM subjects, actually.
Guy Humual wrote: I don't see why political parties can't be forced to nominate 50% female candidates. I can: they're private organizations.
If political parties don't want to play by whatever rules the countries set for them they can be removed from ballots. We don't allow extremist groups onto ballots in Canada there's no reason that a party can't nominate 50% (or close to it) female candidates as a requirement for allowing their party to get on the ballot. I mean you could argue that a political party needs to reflect the country and people they wish to represent. I mean people want to see their beliefs represented and governments should reflect that. I mean if our governments are always made up of rich white guys then the policies and decisions governments make are usually going to be in the favor of rich white guys. Granted there's a lot more choice in Canada, we have parties that represent labor and regional concerns, but it's still pretty much an old boy's club. Mind you I think we're almost up to 25% in our house of commons without any mandated quotas, but parties have also been actively trying for more women no the ballet by them selves.
Not that having 50% women on the ballots would translate into 50% representation in government. There would be incumbents and party strongholds that I'd suspect that many political parties would run their quota of female candidates, where they knew that they were likely facing a loosing ticket.
Alice Margatroid wrote: Delusions of Gender is a good book on that sort of topic if you're interested, Guy (and anyone else). It also talks a fair bit about all sorts of reasons why there aren't more women in STEM subjects, actually. I know why I thought of that study, I heard about it in a talk by Rebecca Watson and she had a SMBC comic in her slides.
meatrace wrote:
I didn't say stop having recreational sex, I said stop breeding, i.e. procreating.
I never suggested you said or implied anything of the sort.
Guy Hummal wrote: If political parties don't want to play by whatever rules the countries set for them they can be removed from ballots. We don't allow extremist groups onto ballots in Canada there's no reason that a party can't nominate 50% (or close to it) female candidates as a requirement for allowing their party to get on the ballot Well, let me put it this way. You cannot stop me from trying to elect mr smith to go to washington- thats denying me my vote. It doesn't matter if you do it by blocking my vote or kicking him off the ballot by virtue of him being mr smith.
Guy Humual wrote: If political parties don't want to play by whatever rules the countries set for them they can be removed from ballots. Wow, how horribly undemocratic.
This sort of thinking is a funadmentalists wet dream.
Shifty wrote: meatrace wrote:
I didn't say stop having recreational sex, I said stop breeding, i.e. procreating.
I never suggested you said or implied anything of the sort. Please explain your comment then.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Well, let me put it this way. You cannot stop me from trying to elect mr smith to go to washington- thats denying me my vote. It doesn't matter if you do it by blocking my vote or kicking him off the ballot by virtue of him being mr smith. ...or blocking him because he isn't from the 'correct' religion, 'correct' racial background, practices the 'correct' brand of politics.
If I didn't know better I'd think the idea of 'blocking' came from the UAE.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Guy Hummal wrote: If political parties don't want to play by whatever rules the countries set for them they can be removed from ballots. We don't allow extremist groups onto ballots in Canada there's no reason that a party can't nominate 50% (or close to it) female candidates as a requirement for allowing their party to get on the ballot Well, let me put it this way. You cannot stop me from trying to elect mr smith to go to washington- thats denying me my vote. It doesn't matter if you do it by blocking my vote or kicking him off the ballot by virtue of him being mr smith. Nothing stopping you from voting for Mr Smith, if he's the incumbent chances are he'll win anyways, but if you're trying to fill an empty ballot why couldn't the party put forward Mrs Smith? It's not like many new candidates are well known before being placed on the ballet by their party. Most of them are just on the ticket to loose anyways. It might take a couple of election cycles but you wouldn't need quotas forever, just till we could shift the balance closer to 50%.
Shifty wrote: Guy Humual wrote: If political parties don't want to play by whatever rules the countries set for them they can be removed from ballots. Wow, how horribly undemocratic.
This sort of thinking is a funadmentalists wet dream. I think you have wet dream confused with nightmare. Most religions are pretty much against women having any sort of power.
Guy Humual wrote: Nothing stopping you from voting for Mr Smith, if he's the incumbent chances are he'll win anyways, but if you're trying to fill an empty ballot why couldn't the party put forward Mrs Smith? Because in this case, the person we wish to elect as our representative is Mr Smith. Mr Smith is a representative of a set of ideals that we are in agreement with, failing Mr Smith being available it could be Ms Brown or Mr Jones, but that should always remain our choice, and no third party should hold veto over our democratic right to choose our representative.
I also find it a bizarre concept that any person could suggest that the defining characteristic of our elected officials should be whether or not they have a willy, rather than the merit of their talents.
Guy Humual wrote:
I think you have wet dream confused with nightmare. Most religions are pretty much against women having any sort of power.
Fundamentalism comes in many many forms, and I find it funny that you immediately link it with religion. That said, your position of championing the concept of parties being denied because it doesn't suit 'the country' is the sort of thing the religious fundamentalists would love you to champion. Once a government has that power they can simply start getting rid of opposition parties like they did in Malaysia, for example.
Shifty wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Nothing stopping you from voting for Mr Smith, if he's the incumbent chances are he'll win anyways, but if you're trying to fill an empty ballot why couldn't the party put forward Mrs Smith? Because in this case, the person we wish to elect as our representative is Mr Smith. Mr Smith is a representative of a set of ideals that we are in agreement with, failing Mr Smith being available it could be Ms Brown or Mr Jones, but that should always remain our choice, and no third party should hold veto over our democratic right to choose our representative.
I also find it a bizarre concept that any person could suggest that the defining characteristic of our elected officials should be whether or not they have a willy, rather than the merit of their talents. As I said, no one is stopping you from electing Mr Smith. Half the people running would be men. As for ideals . . . I really don't think we get to see to see the real candidate in most election cycles these days, quite frankly most elections could be done with stuffed animals. After they've been elected is usually when we get to see the real candidate, though even then their opinions are usually based on the polls. Shaking up our governments couldn't be a bad thing.
Shifty wrote: Guy Humual wrote: I think you have wet dream confused with nightmare. Most religions are pretty much against women having any sort of power. Fundamentalism comes in many many forms, and I find it funny that you immediately link it with religion. That said, your position of championing the concept of parties being denied because it doesn't suit 'the country' is the sort of thing the religious fundamentalists would love you to champion. Once a government has that power they can simply start getting rid of opposition parties like they did in Malaysia, for example.
Fundamentalism is always about religion. And most religions, if not all religions, marginalize women.
Guy Hummal wrote: As I said, no one is stopping you from electing Mr Smith Sure you are. If we want to elect mr smith, and greene county wants to elect mr jones, and Browne county wants to elect mr white you have to tell one of them that they can't.
Guy Humual wrote: As I said, no one is stopping you from electing Mr Smith. Half the people running would be men. If it were Mr Smith and his five brothers, and no women, or Barney the Dinosaur, I do not see why we should have to insist that half of a party is female. If I want six guys, six women, or six eunuchs then the decision should always remain mine.
Of course we would be in agreement that half the politicians could be substituted for a stuffed toy, but that wouldn't change. We'd just have stuffed toys of both genders.
Sorry, but women thundering into power in this country changed nothing, much to our enormous disappointment.
Guy Humual wrote: Fundamentalism is always about religion. And most religions, if not all religions, marginalize women. The Archbishop of Wales would disagree with you there, but I digress, at the end of the day, the ability for parties to be discounted or vetoed by the ruling Government would be a terrible idea, and yes, at the end of the day it would be the women who generally suffer, along with those of differing faiths.
Democracy must be available for all.
So to avoid this, parties must always be entitled to run for office, regardless of their race/gender/beliefs, we can simply choose not to vote for them.
The short answer of my feelings on quotas: they're treating the symptom, not the cause.
Terrible things, terrible.
I agree, we need to sort out the causes, not put in artificial systems that just wallpaper over the cracks.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Guy Hummal wrote: As I said, no one is stopping you from electing Mr Smith Sure you are. If we want to elect mr smith, and greene county wants to elect mr jones, and Browne county wants to elect mr white you have to tell one of them that they can't. What I want is the parties to carry 50% female, they could run them where ever they want. Maybe in your riding you only have male candidates, but that means that there are women are running in other ridings though.
Edit: Let me be more precise. In Canada we have 307 seats in our house of parliament and we have three major parties. Now currently the Conservative party has a majority government so that means that they have more then 153 of the seats, which means the other two parties have a lot of candidates to put forward for the next election (assuming that they put a candidate in every ridding). All I'm saying is that the Liberal party should have 150 or so female candidates along with their 157 male candidates. Where they run these candidates is up to the party. The Conservative party would have a bunch of incumbents but they didn't win every seat so maybe next election all the new candidates they put forward might need to be female.
Alice Margatroid wrote: The short answer of my feelings on quotas: they're treating the symptom, not the cause. I agree. I generally don't think they're a good idea. But sometimes I'd say they're necessary.
Shifty wrote: So to avoid this, parties must always be entitled to run for office, regardless of their race/gender/beliefs, we can simply choose not to vote for them. We don't let just anyone run though, even in a democracy. There are requirements for getting on the ballot, fees, usually signatures, and the act of campaigning is very expensive. That's why we have political parties, they have foots on the ground to look after these hurdles. If one of the requirements for the party to get onto the ballets was to carry close to 50% of the candidates I don't doubt for a second that they'd find the people they needed.
Course knowing the weaselly nature of politicians and lawyers they'd think of a way around it if they had a ton of male candidates they wanted instead. Maybe there would be a bunch of independents that aligned themselves with a particular party or something.
Guy Humual wrote: We don't let just anyone run though, even in a democracy. There are requirements for getting on the ballot, fees, usually signatures, and the act of campaigning is very expensive. I dunno, in Australia we DO let anyone run, the price of registration is quite affordable and well within the means of just about anyone who wants to have a go.
No one says you will win of course, but you get your democratic right to have your voice heard.
Mind you we have a mandatory vote too, and we limit political fund raising and subject all elected officials to strict scrutiny and disclosure - we also have fairly aggressive anti-corruption bodies.
Guy Humual wrote: Shifty wrote: So to avoid this, parties must always be entitled to run for office, regardless of their race/gender/beliefs, we can simply choose not to vote for them. We don't let just anyone run though, even in a democracy. There are requirements for getting on the ballot, fees, usually signatures, and the act of campaigning is very expensive. That's why we have political parties, they have foots on the ground to look after these hurdles. If one of the requirements for the party to get onto the ballets was to carry close to 50% of the candidates I don't doubt for a second that they'd find the people they needed.
Course knowing the weaselly nature of politicians and lawyers they'd think of a way around it if they had a ton of male candidates they wanted instead. Maybe there would be a bunch of independents that aligned themselves with a particular party or something. Considering the begging, pleading, and all but outright extortion I and my fellow committee members go through every year to fill our local Democratic party ticket regardless of gender, I can assure you that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
It's damn near impossible to get people to run period.
I'm guessing you're in a republican strong hold? Things are a bit different in Canada, first we have shorter campaigns, and second we don't usually have as much muck raking at the ridding level. Someone joining a ticket might have to give up a month or so campaigning and usually the personal attacks are aimed at the party leaders or the high profile candidates.
Also, if I understand correctly, the parties in a Parliamentary system have more control over who runs.
In the US system, which candidate runs on the party ticket in a district is determined by a primary election. Not to say the parties don't have a lot of influence, but any requirement for a quota of women would mean a complete overhaul of that system.
Well there are elections for nominations rarely, usually there isn't much competition, and yes the party can simply appoint someone to run in a ridding often times a party leader will put themselves in a safe ridding to run if they don't really have one of their own. Usually it's understood that whoever got bumped gets rewarded by some sweet appointment if the party comes into power. Usually the only big internal party elections are the leadership races. There can be a ridding nomination election though if there are a couple of good candidates. But yes, in Canada at least, the party has a lot of say over who can and cannot run each election.
Guy Humual wrote: I'm guessing you're in a republican strong hold? Things are a bit different in Canada, first we have shorter campaigns, and second we don't usually have as much muck raking at the ridding level. Someone joining a ticket might have to give up a month or so campaigning and usually the personal attacks are aimed at the party leaders or the high profile candidates. They have an advantage, but it's mostly that no one wants to run. Even the Republicans have this issue, why do you think the party has skewed so far into right-wing crazy? It's because those are the people who ran for local offices and part committee seats. That trickled up to state and then federal levels.
More seriously, there's no "fad here in the States seems to be to pop out as many kids as frequently as you can biologically manage". The US birthrate in 2011 was at a record low. We are and have been for awhile hovering around the replacement rate: 2.1 births/woman.
That's hardly going to be "several months out of every year". A couple of months, a couple times in your life is not quite the same burden.
thejeff wrote: That's hardly going to be "several months out of every year". For most people it won't be. But if you put in those strong protections, you open the door for every would-be Dugger to somehow maintain a career while not working. Do you put a "reasonable frequency" clause into the law? Let 'em go wild? Put a minimum amount of back-to-work time before you get another maternity leave? These are questions that would have to be addressed.
|
