• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gender quotas weed out incompetent men

S

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
18,819
Reaction score
5,167
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So if you have ever argued against gender quotas for government or big business then the consequence is that you are also arguing for a mediocre government.
Gender quotas weed out incompetent men - study - The Wireless
They found quotas encourage leaders to be more strategic about who they appoint. Quotas, they say, are a threat to “cozy” political arrangements.

“Our main finding is that gender quotas increase the competence of the political class in general, and among men in particular,” they said.

“Moreover, quotas are bad news for mediocre male leaders who tend to be forced out.”
Click to expand...
 
How bout, the best person for the job gets the position, regardless of their gender? So basically this article is implying the mediocre men get pushed out and replaced by women who might be just as bad, but YAY! PROGRESS! Is that what we are supposed to take away?
 
Gender quotas are sexist, which is reason enough to oppose them.
 
ajn678 said:
How bout, the best person for the job gets the position, regardless of their gender? So basically this article is implying the mediocre men get pushed out and replaced by women who might be just as bad, but YAY! PROGRESS! Is that what we are supposed to take away?
Click to expand...

The article was pretty transparent with it's left leaning feminist bias.
 
How is it better to ignore men because you need to hire women to meet a quota than to ignore women because you want to hire more men? How is the former ok, while the later is sexist?
 
ajn678 said:
How bout, the best person for the job gets the position, regardless of their gender? So basically this article is implying the mediocre men get pushed out and replaced by women who might be just as bad, but YAY! PROGRESS! Is that what we are supposed to take away?
Click to expand...

No, it does not suggest that at all. Did you see something in the article that said mediocre women were being used. Or is it your opinion that women can only reach mediocre heights?

If your serious about the best person getting the job then having an occupation such as a political career should be highly competitive. Gender quotas help to create that competitive nature in the profession.

But in order to attract better men to the political field women would also have to be better at politics as well.
 
soylentgreen said:
No, it does not suggest that at all. Did you see something in the article that said mediocre women were being used. Or is it your opinion that women can only reach mediocre heights?

If your serious about the best person getting the job then having an occupation such as a political career should be highly competitive. Gender quotas help to create that competitive nature in the profession.

But in order to attract better men to the political field women would also have to be better at politics as well.
Click to expand...

They help to eliminate men and undermine what people can voluntarily agree upon.
 
Henrin said:
How is it better to ignore men because you need to hire women to meet a quota than to ignore women because you want to hire more men? How is the former ok, while the later is sexist?
Click to expand...

Political parties get around this conundrum by stating an open policy of 50/50. That way both sides get a shot at complaining.
 
soylentgreen said:
Political parties get around this conundrum by stating an open policy of 50/50. That way both sides get a shot at complaining.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. Women will love it because they figure it increases their chances of employment, while men will hate it because they know it decreases their chances of employment. Guess what? Both sides are right.
 
Henrin said:
How is it better to ignore men because you need to hire women to meet a quota than to ignore women because you want to hire more men? How is the former ok, while the later is sexist?
Click to expand...

Men are not a disadvantaged minority.
 
Henrin said:
And? How does that make it ok?
Click to expand...

It doesn't contribute to the marginalization of a group. Supporting a minority is empowerment. Supporting the majority is contributing to the marginalization of minorities.
 
Henrin said:
No, they don't. Women will love it because they figure it increases their chances of employment, while men will hate it because they know it decreases their chances of employment. Guess what? Both sides are right.
Click to expand...

Apparently only the mediocre men. Why would you argue for creating a mediocre governing body?
 
ecofarm said:
Men are not a disadvantaged minority.
Click to expand...

There you have it. Men deserve it because they are men. Treatment meted out on the basis of inborn characteristics. The KKK and the Nazis would be proud.
 
Henrin said:
How is it better to ignore men because you need to hire women to meet a quota than to ignore women because you want to hire more men? How is the former ok, while the later is sexist?
Click to expand...

Because in one situation you have assumed that women were ignored in the hiring process. We would then be advocating a solution to a problem that does not exist by favoring one category of employee based solely on their gender.

The proper solution to actual sexist behavior against women? Bring your lawsuit.
 
soylentgreen said:
No, it does not suggest that at all. Did you see something in the article that said mediocre women were being used. Or is it your opinion that women can only reach mediocre heights?

If your serious about the best person getting the job then having an occupation such as a political career should be highly competitive. Gender quotas help to create that competitive nature in the profession.

But in order to attract better men to the political field women would also have to be better at politics as well.
Click to expand...

No you have no idea if a man or a women is going to be mediocre or not.
no they don't they weed out potential better candidate to fill a position too meet a number.
they are mutually exclusive. one has nothing to do with the other.
 
soylentgreen said:
Apparently only the mediocre men. Why would you argue for creating a mediocre governing body?
Click to expand...

Why do you ignore that men end up being unable to get certain jobs because the quota for the gender was reached?
 
soylentgreen said:
So if you have ever argued against gender quotas for government or big business then the consequence is that you are also arguing for a mediocre government.
Gender quotas weed out incompetent men - study - The Wireless
Click to expand...

The devil is always in the details.
Here.

The study also takes advantage of unique data to put forward a new way of gauging competence. Existing research has relied mostly on education levels. But our measure of competence relies on a comparison of the private incomes across people with the same education, occupation, age, and residence in the same geographical region (members of municipal councils in Sweden typically keep their private job). A competent politician, we argue, is a person who makes more than the median amongst politicians with similar characteristics.
Click to expand...

LSE Business Review ? Gender quotas and the crisis of the mediocre man

Using what is an extremely arguable measurement of "competence" this study should be viewed and considered with great suspicion.
In other words, it isn't worth a hill of ****, unless they can demonstrate that higher income = higher competence.

A couple of rules to follow when it comes to "scientific" studies.

A. Read them critically.
B. Beware the one study.
C. Be extra skeptical of sociological studies.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
The devil is always in the details.
Here.



LSE Business Review ? Gender quotas and the crisis of the mediocre man

Using what is an extremely arguable measurement of "competence" this study should be viewed and considered with great suspicion.
In other words, it isn't worth a hill of ****, unless they can demonstrate that higher income = higher competence.

A couple of rules to follow when it comes to "scientific" studies.

A. Read them critically.
B. Beware the one study.
C. Be extra skeptical of sociological studies.
Click to expand...

Tumblr_mawxhmnEOb1ruyug0.gif
 
LowDown said:
There you have it. Men deserve it because they are men. Treatment meted out on the basis of inborn characteristics. The KKK and the Nazis would be proud.
Click to expand...

Being the majority power is not inborn. Believing so is racist.

Race or gender is incidental, no racial or gender attributes are attributed, all are presumed the same. It's a matter of majority power thus privilege, a socially typical occurrence.
 
LowDown said:
So replacing a man with any woman is in all cases an improvement? That's pretty blatantly bigoted and sexist, but I'm not surprised. And to hell with you people.
Click to expand...

Exaggerating your case does not help you. The study refers to political careers, not all cases. And does imply business might be a case as well. So in the case of wanting better quality politicians rather than your smearing everything brush, would it not be an improvement that would benefit everyone. Why do you insist on status quo if all that it will do is give you mediocre en for leaders?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom