Moments of Permanence - A curious parallel

From: alias_sqbr Date: March 19th, 2009 04:26 am (UTC) (Link)

Yes, under certain circumstances. Especially if you do not in fact have equal representation, ie politicians are mostly male yet represent a (slightly) majority female population, so the voices of female politicians on issues of gender should be given a bit more weight if only to counteract the tendency for male voices to dominate.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: grahame.livejournal.com Date: March 19th, 2009 05:12 am (UTC) (Link)

However, those politicians were selected through a political process in which everyone had the opportunity to (and in Australia, was compelled to) vote. If we end up with less female politicians despite a slight majority of women voting, I don't see why there should be any bias in the weighting given to opinions of particular representatives.

I guess I'm saying that if women believe that their gender-related issues need to be represented by female parliamentarians, then they should probably elect some.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: alias_sqbr Date: March 19th, 2009 05:23 am (UTC) (Link)

Oh I don't mean their votes should count double or anything, just that if a party was developing a policy about maternity leave, say, they'd make sure to get a lot of women involved in writing it. Same way that if they're developing science policy they should talk to scientists and not just rely on the fact that some politicians happen to have science degrees.

But this:
I guess I'm saying that if women believe that their gender-related issues need to be represented by female parliamentarians, then they should probably elect some.

really misses the point of why women (or any other under-represented group) are proportionally under-represented in the corridors of power.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: grahame.livejournal.com Date: March 19th, 2009 05:30 am (UTC) (Link)

How so? It's not like women are < 1% of the population unable to get meaningful representation due to our system of elections.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: angrylemur.livejournal.com Date: March 19th, 2009 07:32 am (UTC) (Link)

uhm, male politicians in the runnings for these positions vastly outnumber their female counterparts - just for starters. There are social reasons behind that - women have it harder getting into politics then men due to social barriers and just outright sexism, go figure! But also, when women DO manage to get into those positions, they tend to do so by largely selling out the people they claim to represent and supporting policies that make the people around them (largely wealthy white men) more comfortable (see also: Sarah Palin). This means that if women (or any marginalized group, for that matter) want to elect someone who truly represents us, we are doubly screwed - our choices are so limited as to not be choices at all.

IN CONCLUSION: Blame the victim much?

(Reply) (Parent)

From: troubleinchina.livejournal.com Date: March 19th, 2009 07:52 am (UTC) (Link)

If you have some time, could you explain why men are not expected to vote for women? Do they not have a stake in issues around, for example, child care?

It's well documented that in countries where women make up a minimum of 30% of the elected officials, issues like family support and child care get a lot more attention in national politics, so I would think, being that men have a stake in such things, they'd be eager to vote for women as well.

I don't need an answer right away - I'm far away and should be going to sleep three hours ago anyway. But I'm always curious as to why the answer is "women should vote for women more often!" and not "men should vote for women more often", and I was hoping you'd be able to explain it to me.

(Reply) (Parent)

From: myfyr.livejournal.com Date: March 19th, 2009 08:59 am (UTC) (Link)

...
Okay, I both know you and like you - in fact I think quite highly of you as a person. So I can safely assume that you are honestly unaware of the can of worms you have just upended over your head.

Either that or you are trolling in a spectacularly dangerous (not to mention inappropriate, given the location) fashion. I suspect the former.

Anyway, you appear to have completely missed the last 80 odd years of the equal rights movement. Unless you really do not care at all what people on the internet think of you, or about how honestly hurt some people you know personally might be, my recommendation would be that you:
a) Put some serious thought into this
b) Do some research
c) Have a private chat with, say, Sophie (for example)
d) All of the above
before making any more comments.

Seriously. I sometimes play Devil's advocate with this stuff, but this is ... Well, kinda surprising, tbqh. I may have to rethink the trolling analysis. :/

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: grahame.livejournal.com Date: March 19th, 2009 09:29 am (UTC) (Link)

Well, apologies if I've annoyed anyone - just following a chain of argument without much actual concern for what I'm saying. It's a fun thing to do sometimes..

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: flyingblogspot.livejournal.com Date: March 19th, 2009 11:21 am (UTC) (Link)

To contribute maturely to this Serious Debate:

Bwahahah, you were pwned. :D

More seriously, I have loads of awesome books which cover themes of structural oppression and marginalisation, should you ever find the time and inclination for some light reading.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: grahame.livejournal.com Date: March 19th, 2009 11:57 am (UTC) (Link)

I've been mulling it over all afternoon and evening (wow, it got late fast), and it's remarkable how you can follow an argument down a blind alleyway and then get mugged by people who are right.

(Reply) (Parent)