You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: 50% Women in Dutch Parliament Shall Be The Goal Khadija Arib (Chairs Parliament) Says
Silvio Berlusconi wanted more women in the parliament, too. Maybe they were not the same kind of women this lady has in mind, and this is how this kind of narrative is useless. 50% of pornstars in the parliament is still 50% of women.
So the point is: which kind of women. Which is the point nobody will never discuss...
You have a good point.
In the Netherlands we have general elections next wednesday, March 15. And as always we have some parties who want to set a mininum quota for women for several positions, in government jobs as well as in C-level positions in the private sector. I personally am against setting quota, since I believe the best person shall get the job. But, we are still facing inequality between men and women. But then again, most women in the Netherlands do not want full time jobs, but go for parttime jobs, meaning working 3days instead of 5days. That and maybe other reasons, may result women to decide differently on what jobs they want and may cause the idea of inequality. Said that, salaries for women and men in the same job vary slightly, with the men earning more.
Regarding parliament and my original post. The idea of having more women in parliament is to have different type of discussions, since in general we can see in parliament when more women are part of the discussions, less power fighting seems to happen, more bridges are trying to be build.
Regarding your comment on WHAT type of women; it is implicitely meant by this lady that the type shall be the participating type, the persons who have the democracy at heart, who want to contribute, who want to make a difference, who like to foght for the common good. But indeed, although this is implicitely meant, not explicitely mentioned; it would not hurt if something is said about it when making such statements.
"since in general we can see in parliament when more women are part of the discussions, less power fighting seems to happen, more bridges are trying to be build."
This means there are no italian women there. Not sure if this is a bless.
Anyhow, the very point is that your sex is not telling how good you are or not. Would be better to ask at least 50% of people to have a PhD, by example: at least it says they are goot in something. Useful or not, having a PhD is still an achievement. Having a vagina is not.
The risk is that sure, 50% of women in the parliament, and half of them are just having an affair with people in their parties. Not such a deal.
I suspect genitalia has a little to do with quality of politicians. Until you don't like Silvio Berlusconi, of course. Then, size of politicians matters.
Good point again. Indeed sex itself does not tell a lot about how someone is behaving. In general, both sexes have their own specific dominating characteristics. But this does not say anything for each individual. But in the end they all have to work together, somehow, and the group dynamics will start to play a role. A group of 150 people may not be the right size to apply statistics, but with lets say 50% of them being men and 50% being women, the collective of the whole group would be a mix of the generalities we know are dominant by men and dominant by women. PhD: well, that doesn't say a lot as well. I know quite a few people who are in their tunnel of expertise and are not able to be a generalist and therefore are not able to look across the board, and beyond their own tunnel. It would also be not so 'democratic' to set criteria, whether that be education level, behavioural criteria, ethnic background or even sex.