Harriet Harman is off again

[Tiger]

If we are talking about why we don't get as many female, black and minority ethnic or disabled individuals seeking to become politicians the problem lies in the current system not with apathy from those groups. Whether we like it or not there are barriers and glass ceilings that still remain in Britain that perpetuate the status quo.

 

[FairwayDodger]

FD is confusing equality and equity. People often do. If the ratio of candidates who are put forward is 1:4, then the current system is equitable. Equality is not necessarily a desirable outcome. Harman certainly doesn't believe in it with regard to the rights of divorced fathers.

Not at all. 1:4 is far to great a disparity to claim that equity has been applied. Something is amiss in the way our MPs are selected. Even if the answer is that for various reasons less women put themselves forward that is still inequitable.

Don't get me started on the lords......

Stepping backwards a minute, I think the MPs in parliament should represent a rough cross section of society. Gender being the biggest single differential I think there would be a roughly 50/50 split in an ideal world. Is that a reasonable aspiration?

 

[Foxholer]

Of course not, but imagine the next parliament only had 20% men; you wouldn't be happy!

You have neither the right nor the competence to make that statement!

 

[Tiger]

You have neither the right nor the competence to make that statement!

I hope this is missing a wink smiley

 

[Ethan]

Not at all. 1:4 is far to great a disparity to claim that equity has been applied. Something is amiss in the way our MPs are selected. Even if the answer is that for various reasons less women put themselves forward that is still inequitable.

Don't get me started on the lords......

Stepping backwards a minute, I think the MPs in parliament should represent a rough cross section of society. Gender being the biggest single differential I think there would be a roughly 50/50 split in an ideal world. Is that a reasonable aspiration?

I don't think you understand the concept of equity.

Anyway, is that a reasonable aspiration? Perhaps, if similar numbers of women and men want, and are suitably qualified, to be MPs. Should doctors, teachers, police etc etc all be equally 50/50?

The point about equity is that if the ratio of men and women coming forward for nomination is 1:4, then ending up with a similar ratio among selected candidates is equitable. Otherwise, you either have to construct an argument that the women nominees are on average better (however defined, XX or XY genotype excepted), and therefore are being discriminated against in the selection process, or they are much the same but it is reasonable to select less well qualified women just because they are women.

Does the same logic extend to ethnic groups, social class, age ranges, gay vs straight, etc etc?

Personally I would be very happy to discriminate against career politicians of either gender, or Michael Gove, who have come from Oxbridge with a PPE degree, worked as a special adviser or lobbyist before being inserted into a safe seat.

 

[stevie_r]

Not at all. 1:4 is far to great a disparity to claim that equity has been applied. Something is amiss in the way our MPs are selected. Even if the answer is that for various reasons less women put themselves forward that is still inequitable.

Don't get me started on the lords......

Stepping backwards a minute, I think the MPs in parliament should represent a rough cross section of society. Gender being the biggest single differential I think there would be a roughly 50/50 split in an ideal world. Is that a reasonable aspiration?

Of course it is a reasonable aspiration, it makes sense. However, you are still claiming that something is wrong with the way the selection process works -even if less women put themselves forward? So presumably to achieve a 50/ 50 split we should either press gang women into politics or select a less able woman over a man in the interests of trying reach an aspirational target.

Just because women make up 50% of the population doesn't mean you are ever likely to achieve an even split across the whole of society in all things.

 

[Foxholer]

I hope this is missing a wink smiley

No, it quite deliberately doesn't - and nor does this one!

Explain to me how someone who has never met me can make such a bald unqualified statement.

If the words 'I don't think/believe' were included, then fine - that's opinion. But as-is, my statement stands.

And as it happens, it's probably wrong. And, imo, merely reflects badly on FD's 'equality' intentions.

 

[FairwayDodger]

No, it quite deliberately doesn't - and nor does this one!

Explain to me how someone who has never met me can make such a bald unqualified statement.

If the words 'I don't think/believe' were included, then fine - that's opinion. But as-is, my statement stands.

And as it happens, it's probably wrong. And, imo, merely reflects badly on FD's 'equality' intentions.

I think the smiley was probably missing from my post. <deep sigh>

 

[FairwayDodger]

I don't think you understand the concept of equity.

<snip>

The point about equity is that if the ratio of men and women coming forward for nomination is 1:4, then ending up with a similar ratio among selected candidates is equitable. Otherwise, you either have to construct an argument that the women nominees are on average better (however defined, XX or XY genotype excepted), and therefore are being discriminated against in the selection process, or they are much the same but it is reasonable to select less well qualified women just because they are women.

Does the same logic extend to ethnic groups, social class, age ranges, gay vs straight, etc etc?

I think I do, but clearly put a broader interpretation on "fairness" than you do. You are confining your argument to the actual selection process where of the proportion of people coming forward you assume the same proportion is eventually selected (although I don't think we've seen any figures to either back up or refute that hypothesis). Within those terms, yes , it is equitable. In the broader context I suggest that some other inequities place a barrier to women coming forward for selection.

Yes, in my mythical ideal world all sections of society would be represented in parliament.

 

[Ethan]

I think I do, but clearly put a broader interpretation on "fairness" than you do. You are confining your argument to the actual selection process where of the proportion of people coming forward you assume the same proportion is eventually selected (although I don't think we've seen any figures to either back up or refute that hypothesis). Within those terms, yes , it is equitable. In the broader context I suggest that some other inequities place a barrier to women coming forward for selection.

Yes, in my mythical ideal world all sections of society would be represented in parliament.

Please. Fairness is a complicated concept, and in your case, a broader interpretation simply means you can keep arguing that things are unfair just because it seems that way to you even if you can't find specific arguments. You made the accusation but now it seems you don't have the facts to back it.

Equality and equity are often in conflict, and sometimes rightly so, so when you trot out the idea that something is unfair, you have to say what you mean. In terms of equality, the gender breakdown currently is clearly not equal, but it does not follow that it is necessary that numerical inequality leads to unequal or unfair treatment.

 

[Foxholer]

I don't think you understand the concept of equity.

Anyway, is that a reasonable aspiration? Perhaps, if similar numbers of women and men want, and are suitably qualified, to be MPs. Should doctors, teachers, police etc etc all be equally 50/50?

The point about equity is that if the ratio of men and women coming forward for nomination is 1:4, then ending up with a similar ratio among selected candidates is equitable. Otherwise, you either have to construct an argument that the women nominees are on average better (however defined, XX or XY genotype excepted), and therefore are being discriminated against in the selection process, or they are much the same but it is reasonable to select less well qualified women just because they are women.

Does the same logic extend to ethnic groups, social class, age ranges, gay vs straight, etc etc?

Personally I would be very happy to discriminate against career politicians of either gender, or Michael Gove, who have come from Oxbridge with a PPE degree, worked as a special adviser or lobbyist before being inserted into a safe seat.

Certainly there's no reason I can see why the ratio in the Medical Profession (yours I gather) shouldn't reflect that of general society - allowing for the 'drag' of previous differences.

In fact, I believe the medical profession actually demonstrates some of the earliest documented prejudices against women. Most of the women murdered as 'witches' were merely competitors in the workplace dominated by/exclusive to men! I'd suggest that's also a major underlying reason there's still inequality in Church rules too.

My attitude is/would be 'Are they/Would they be a good MP' What their background is is much less of a consideration to me. However, if I was picking a team of MPs, such as what DC does for Cabinet, I'd want a group that, along with being able to do the job, also reflects society rather more than the current one does! But I'm happy to admit I'm not much of a political animal. So how a top political animal deals with aspiring top political animals is a matter for them!

 

[Ethan]

Certainly there's no reason I can see why the ratio in the Medical Profession (yours I gather) shouldn't reflect that of general society - allowing for the 'drag' of previous differences.

In fact, I believe the medical profession actually demonstrates some of the earliest documented prejudices against women. Most of the women murdered as 'witches' were merely competitors in the workplace dominated by/exclusive to men! I'd suggest that's also a major underlying reason there's still inequality in Church rules too.

Women are now in a majority in medical school.

Within the medical profession, the term witches is now used for homeopaths and chiropractors rather than women.

 

[Birchy]

Here she goes again playing the sexism card to anyone who will listen.

Fair enough when there has clearly been discrimination against women but yet again she has jumped onto anything she can find to try and help her own agenda. Maybe if she thought why there is no womens race before she opened her daft mouth then people would take her views more seriously.

The womens tour has not been run since 2009 as stated in the article due to lack of sponsors. Why the hell is she writing a letter to the Tour de France director bleating about it?

Surely instead of whinging on trying to pressurise the mens tour director her time would be better spent trying to obtain sponsorship for the Womens race??

 

[FairwayDodger]

Please. Fairness is a complicated concept, and in your case, a broader interpretation simply means you can keep arguing that things are unfair just because it seems that way to you even if you can't find specific arguments. You made the accusation but now it seems you don't have the facts to back it.

Equality and equity are often in conflict, and sometimes rightly so, so when you trot out the idea that something is unfair, you have to say what you mean. In terms of equality, the gender breakdown currently is clearly not equal, but it does not follow that it is necessary that numerical inequality leads to unequal or unfair treatment.

Hmm.. I made the argument that there was a disproportionate split of male/female MPs in parliament and produced the figures to back that up.... it's 80/20, you'll recall.

In response to the suggestion that the same proportion go forward to the electorate as candidates I commented that the selection process must be flawed (OK, an opinion). Not stated, but certainly intended, was that includes the reasons/manner/blockers for people choosing to go forward for selection.

It was actually yourself who suggested that it was equitable since the proportion of females selected as candidates matches those who come forward; without producing any figures to back up that hypothesis. Rather than nit-pick I was happy to concede that I didn't know whether that was true or not so pretty sad you chose to twist this one back at me.

No point going on with this now it's descended into patronisation and he-said she-said.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The womens tour has not been run since 2009 as stated in the article due to lack of sponsors. Why the hell is she writing a letter to the Tour de France director bleating about it?

I very strongly suspect that if the TdF were told that they HAD to hold a womens race then it would happen.

In life if you are facing a journey it is easy to see all the obstacles in the way and so if you don't have to get there then you might not bother starting or you give up along the way - but if you have to reach your destination, the chances are that you'll get there.

If the will is there it will happen.

 

[ger147]

I very strongly suspect that if the TdF were told that they HAD to hold a womens race then it would happen.

In life if you are facing a journey it is easy to see all the obstacles in the way and so if you don't have to get there then you might not bother starting or you give up along the way - but if you have to reach your destination, the chances are that you'll get there.

If the will is there it will happen.

And who would pay for that, the French tax payer? As it would need to be the French authorities who "force" them to do so.

 

[Foxholer]

Women are now in a majority in medical school.

Good to see. Is the ratio of graduates basically the same as that of their entrance ratios?

Within the medical profession, the term witches is now used for homeopaths and chiropractors rather than women.

:rofl:

Though I've seen 'homeopathic' remedies work (on animals, so no placebo required). And I'd sooner go straight to a (suitably qualified, non-'extreme') manipulative Chiropractor for many of my chronic ailments than my GP!

 

[Ethan]

Good to see. Is the ratio of graduates basically the same as that of their entrance ratios?


Though I've seen 'homeopathic' remedies work (on animals, so no placebo required). And I'd sooner go straight to a (suitably qualified, non-'extreme') manipulative Chiropractor for many of my chronic ailments than my GP!

Placebo effect is much more than 'its all in the head' and occurs in animals and even test tubes too.

Homeopathy does not work as such - i.e. it does not evoke any pharmacological effect on humans or animals because by design it has no active pharmacological ingredient. It is great, however, for conditions that are likely to get better themselves anyway.

No idea on the female graduation rate in medicine, may be better than the male if my class year is any indicator.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

And who would pay for that, the French tax payer? As it would need to be the French authorities who "force" them to do so.

Actually I don't care - if it had to be held then someone would pay for it and it would happen. As usual a hurdle is thrown in the way that some see as stopping it dead in it's tracks rather than just accept that a way would be found.

So if the TdF themselves felt it had to happen then it would - they would find a way.

 

[Foxholer]

Homeopathy does not work as such - i.e. it does not evoke any pharmacological effect on humans or animals because by design it has no active pharmacological ingredient. It is great, however, for conditions that are likely to get better themselves anyway.

:rofl:

Actually, this wasn't a homeopathic remedy, it as a 'Natural'/Herbal one- Garlic Powder for Sweet Itch. I'm definitely not a believer in pure homeopathic remedies - for the reason you state!

There may/may not have been other factors involved, but the 2 years I observed, the symptoms were certainly much reduced. Owner certainly wasn't going to allow Steroids to be used! Obviously only 1 case and certainly not 'scientific'. I also saw a 'Horse Chiropractor' in action too - successfully!