Page 33 of 33 FirstFirst ... 23313233
Results 481 to 483 of 483
  1. #481
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Again, not proven. Leadership positions often require long hours at the office, and women are often more sensible about prioritizing family time over work.
    Also speculation. Times have changed - women are no longer prevented from following careers by their biological constraints of bearing children along the way.

    What is proven is the under-representation of women in the House of Representatives. The ALP, which has a policy of pre-selecting at least one woman for every three winnable seats, has a 41% female representation. The Libs have 20%, Nationals 6%. Women are standing as candidates in record numbers, but the pre-selection processes of the major parties operate under mens' rules.

    Politiciansí positions have never been determined on merit. Of course, there are many people who have merit who come into parliament and that is a mix of the ability and the commitment to what they believe in from their particular political ideology. But we have never been able, in any country that I know of, to actually list these particular criteria for determining who will make a good political representative. Politiciansí positions are determined by their ability to win support from a narrow section of a political party or trade union, by their knowledge and their experience within that structure and their ability to attract the numbers in pre-selection ballots.

    ĎMerití is in the eye of the beholder and traditionally Australian mateship has perpetuated the assumption that men will be more likely to have the appropriate mix of qualities to suit them for parliamentary life. Dale Spenderís assessment of the merit argument suggests that: ĎMen canít or wonít see that their definitions of merit, expectation and experiences are nothing more than rules theyíve made up to protect their own positions.í
    https://www.aph.gov.au/senate/~/~/li...C1253891C&_z=z

    But apparently your answer is to select women over men regardless of merit, just like the emasculated politically correct Polizei and military. Of course, affirmative action hires don't get the respect, and neither do they deserve it. The problem is that this disrespect carries over to the members of the favoured group who earned their positions on merit.
    You assume too much. I am challenging the underlying premise - that in the good old days selection was always by merit, which is simply not true. The majority of Australians, women, have always been discriminated against by the minority male population. The situation is slowly improving, aided by quotas when necessary to overcome the inertia.

  2. #482
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    ...But apparently your answer is to select women over men regardless of merit, just like the emasculated politically correct Polizei and military. Of course, affirmative action hires don't get the respect, and neither do they deserve it. The problem is that this disrespect carries over to the members of the favoured group who earned their positions on merit.
    There is a more rational explanation, to dilute the embedded cultural misogynism in the military.

  3. #483
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Murray View Post
    Also speculation. Times have changed - women are no longer prevented from following careers by their biological constraints of bearing children along the way.
    No they are not. But it is only natural that people who work for longer hours and have less leave will accumulate more hours and experience. As Thomas Sowell points out:

    For example, some women are mothers and some men are fathers. But does the fact that they are both parents make them comparable in the labor market? Actually the biggest disparity in incomes is between fathers and mothers. Nor is there anything mysterious about this, when you stop and think about it.

    How surprising is it that women with children do not earn as much as women who do not have children? If you donít think children take up a motherís time, you just havenít raised any children.

    How surprising is it that men with children earn more than men without children, just the opposite of the situation with women? Is it surprising that a man who has more mouths to feed is more likely to work longer hours? Or take on harder or more dangerous jobs, in order to earn more money?

    More than 90 percent of the people who are killed on the job are men.

    There is no point pretending that there are no differences between what women do and what men do in the workplace, or that these differences donít affect income.

    When the hours and experience are equalized, then the disparities disappear. Another Sowell column pointed out:

    As far back as 1971, single women in their thirties who had worked continuously since high school earned slightly more than men of the same description. As far back as 1969, academic women who had never married earned more than academic men who had never married.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Murray View Post
    What is proven is the under-representation of women in the House of Representatives. The ALP, which has a policy of pre-selecting at least one woman for every three winnable seats, has a 41% female representation. The Libs have 20%, Nationals 6%. Women are standing as candidates in record numbers, but the pre-selection processes of the major parties operate under mens' rules.
    Any proof of that? Again, a lot of the above presupposes that numerical disparity is in itself proof of discrimination.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Murray View Post
    ĎMerití is in the eye of the beholder
    If you believe that, then you have no basis for asserting discrimination between men and women of equal merit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Murray View Post
    You assume too much. I am challenging the underlying premise - that in the good old days selection was always by merit, which is simply not true. The majority of Australians, women, have always been discriminated against by the minority male population. The situation is slowly improving, aided by quotas when necessary to overcome the inertia.
    Quotas are never necessary. What you really mean is: you don't really object to sexual discrimination, as long as it is Left approved discrimination.
    1. Terrorist attacks by Muslims.
    The Left: We shouldn't judge all Muslims by the actions of a few thousand.

    2. Thug murders people (in gun free zone).
    The Left: We should judge all 50 American gun owners by the actions of a few.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Johnny's Going Down
    By Basil in forum Politics
    Replies: 686
    Last Post: 04-03-2016, 03:03 AM
  2. Are you sorry?
    By arosar in forum Politics
    Replies: 168
    Last Post: 26-02-2008, 12:56 AM
  3. Replies: 101
    Last Post: 12-12-2007, 09:15 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
  •