Is Camerons promise to ensure 1 3rd of his cabinet are female actually sexist??

surely this means that the job will not go to the best candidate but it will go to a female candidate, which must be sexist...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:surely this means that the job will not go to the best candidate but it will go to a female candidate, which must be sexist...

Only if you start from the assumption that all or most of the best candidates are men ...

hmmm   its a good question.....

imposed "quotas" aka "reverse discrimination" is a contentious subject ....

one doesnt need to star with any "preconceived notions" about who's best ...thats just lazy lefty thinking.....

he should choose the best for the job...regardless of whatever "label" can or might be used

whether that ends up with all male all female or all green spotted outer mongolian woodpeckers is quite frankly irrelevant

saying and doing anything else is merely pandering to "whims "

darknessss wrote:hmmm   its a good question.....

imposed "quotas" aka "reverse discrimination" is a contentious subject ....

one doesnt need to star with any "preconceived notions" about who's best ...thats just lazy lefty thinking.....

he should choose the best for the job...regardless of whatever "label" can or might be used

whether that ends up with all male all female or all green spotted outer mongolian woodpeckers is quite frankly irrelevant

saying and doing anything else is merely pandering to "whims "

exactly, if two people went for a job and one got it just because they were female that would be discrimination...

which is what he has set up to do to buy votes...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:surely this means that the job will not go to the best candidate but it will go to a female candidate, which must be sexist...

Only if you start from the assumption that all or most of the best candidates are men ...

but it will sway the decision even if the candidates are of equal ability, i thought that was illegal to do...

Well. If Britain is truly an equal society, there should be roughly as many male and female qualified candidates. So I think the 1/3 benchmark is discriminating against women, actually.

Unless the British believe in only having dicks in their government, which I think there's evidence for ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:Well. If Britain is truly an equal society, there should be roughly as many male and female qualified candidates. So I think the 1/3 benchmark is discriminating against women, actually.

Unless the British believe in only having dicks in their government, which I think there's evidence for ...

being an equal society means equal right if the men are better candidates they should get the job if the women are better candidates they should get the job anything other than that is sexist...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Well. If Britain is truly an equal society, there should be roughly as many male and female qualified candidates. So I think the 1/3 benchmark is discriminating against women, actually.

Unless the British believe in only having dicks in their government, which I think there's evidence for ...

being an equal society means equal right if the men are better candidates they should get the job if the women are better candidates they should get the job anything other than that is sexist...

Right, and an equal society would be expected to produce equally qualified candidates for government from the ranks of both men and women. And since each gender makes up about half of the country, the country (if it's really equal) would have about half men, half women in government.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

being an equal society means equal right if the men are better candidates they should get the job if the women are better candidates they should get the job anything other than that is sexist...

Right, and an equal society would be expected to produce equally qualified candidates for government from the ranks of both men and women. And since each gender makes up about half of the country, the country (if it's really equal) would have about half men, half women in government.

not at all, why should it, if certain people are not drawn to a given profession that is there decision and it is sexist too assume they should have too.

not many men complain that by far the greatest percentages of secretaries are women, so companies should be forced to readdress that balance.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Well. If Britain is truly an equal society, there should be roughly as many male and female qualified candidates. So I think the 1/3 benchmark is discriminating against women, actually.

Unless the British believe in only having dicks in their government, which I think there's evidence for ...

so...you think that the sexes are identical (as opposed to equal) then?????????

pheweeee.....you are someone out to be dissillusioned,,.......

what about the fact that women (in general) are less political than men...so less will become "politicians"

what about the fact that womens preference for a party is bound (in general , on average) going to differ fom men....so there will be more  or less women in one party as compared to another

so there are NOT going to be roughly as many male and female qualified candidates...are there

there is bound to be a bias due to the sex of the candidate

EVEN BEFORE we consider any sexist bias one way or the other...

for exactly the same reason as there are more ecomnomists in politics than scientists

politics appeals to the economist mind set
it doesnt to the scientific mindset

so there is a natural bias...

jeepers its not rocket science

you are arguing (as usual for a lefty) from a convincing but utterly false premise

NOW..I'm not saying that a sexist bias doesnt exist...because we all know it damn well does and needs correcting

but the way to do that ISNT by the imposition of "reverse discrimination" which does in fact lead to less able people being rammed into posts they are not suited to in order to fill a quota....

its like ...oh we havnt used enough round pegs...pass me some square ones.....but boss the holes are round...I dont care gimme some square ones......and that bloody big hammer

So British women aren't interested in getting involved in the running of their country, huh?

Really?

Ben_Reilly wrote:So British women aren't interested in getting involved in the running of their country, huh?

Really?

nearly 40% of the country couldn't care less who runs the country...

more lefty hyperbolics or just plain bollocks

where .....exactly............ did i say "British women aren't interested in getting involved in the running of their country"

I think you will find that actually I SAID
" women (in general) are less political than men...so less will become "politicians"

even if that factor is only 10% its going to have an effect...

coupled with an undeniable difference in political preference its going to have an even larger difference...



Is this the new lefty tactic.....be deliberately stupid and obtuse
and deliberatly "reinterpret and reword" anything you dont wish to think about/cant cope with/doesnt fit into your imaginary world??

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:So British women aren't interested in getting involved in the running of their country, huh?

Really?

nearly 40% of the country couldn't care less who runs the country...

now theres a point...but i bet that isnt all that divided ......

darknessss wrote:more lefty hyperbolics  or just plain bollocks

where .....exactly............ did i say "British women aren't interested in getting involved in the running of their country"

I think you will find that actually I SAID
" women (in general) are less political than men...so less will become "politicians"

even if that factor is only 10% its going to have an effect...

coupled with an undeniable difference in political preference its going to have an even larger difference...



Is this the new lefty tactic.....be deliberately stupid and obtuse
and deliberatly "reinterpret and reword" anything you dont wish to think about/cant cope with/doesnt fit into your imaginary world??

So what you're saying is that in general, British women prefer to keep to their knitting, fashion magazines and not doing math than they are interested in helping run their country?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

darknessss wrote:more lefty hyperbolics  or just plain bollocks

where .....exactly............ did i say "British women aren't interested in getting involved in the running of their country"

I think you will find that actually I SAID
" women (in general) are less political than men...so less will become "politicians"

even if that factor is only 10% its going to have an effect...

coupled with an undeniable difference in political preference its going to have an even larger difference...



Is this the new lefty tactic.....be deliberately stupid and obtuse
and deliberatly "reinterpret and reword" anything you dont wish to think about/cant cope with/doesnt fit into your imaginary world??

So what you're saying is that in general, British women prefer to keep to their knitting, fashion magazines and not doing math than they are interested in helping run their country?

now that is a sexist comment...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

darknessss wrote:more lefty hyperbolics  or just plain bollocks

where .....exactly............ did i say "British women aren't interested in getting involved in the running of their country"

I think you will find that actually I SAID
" women (in general) are less political than men...so less will become "politicians"

even if that factor is only 10% its going to have an effect...

coupled with an undeniable difference in political preference its going to have an even larger difference...



Is this the new lefty tactic.....be deliberately stupid and obtuse
and deliberatly "reinterpret and reword" anything you dont wish to think about/cant cope with/doesnt fit into your imaginary world??

So what you're saying is that in general, British women prefer to keep to their knitting, fashion magazines and not doing math than they are interested in helping run their country?

Is this the new lefty tactic.....be deliberately stupid and obtuse
and deliberatly "reinterpret and reword" anything you dont wish to think about/cant cope with/doesnt fit into your imaginary world??

where ...exactly ...did I say......"that in general, British women prefer to keep to their knitting, fashion magazines and not doing math than they are interested in helping run their country?"???????

darknessss wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

darknessss wrote:more lefty hyperbolics  or just plain bollocks

where .....exactly............ did i say "British women aren't interested in getting involved in the running of their country"

I think you will find that actually I SAID
" women (in general) are less political than men...so less will become "politicians"

even if that factor is only 10% its going to have an effect...

coupled with an undeniable difference in political preference its going to have an even larger difference...



Is this the new lefty tactic.....be deliberately stupid and obtuse
and deliberatly "reinterpret and reword" anything you dont wish to think about/cant cope with/doesnt fit into your imaginary world??

So what you're saying is that in general, British women prefer to keep to their knitting, fashion magazines and not doing math than they are interested in helping run their country?

Is this the new lefty tactic.....be deliberately stupid and obtuse
and deliberatly "reinterpret and reword" anything you dont wish to think about/cant cope with/doesnt fit into your imaginary world??

where ...exactly ...did I say......"that in general, British women prefer to keep to their knitting, fashion magazines and not doing math than they are interested in helping run their country?"???????

Oh, my goodness! You're saying that when people twist around your values and make it out as though you support things you don't, that ... is ... upsetting to you?

You know, it's taking a great effort, but I can almost kind of sort of see how that might suck.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t9511-its-true-lefties-can-inhabit-two-opposing-positions-at-the-same-time

I'm sorry, Dark. I will strive in the future not to claim you support backwards ideas when you, in fact, do not.

erm ..whats this ...wriggle wriggle lefty??

I merely want you to be sure of what i actually posted

I mean ...one cant tust a lefty to actually understand anything more complicated than the most basic concepts

darknessss wrote:erm ..whats this ...wriggle wriggle lefty??

I merely want you to be sure of what i actually posted

I mean ...one cant tust a lefty to actually understand anything more complicated than the most basic concepts

You can't really be this slow

well I dont think I actually twisted anyones words in that thread you show as an example

I may have spread the attribution around a bit but you cannot say I falsely attributed any comment to anyone...

I didnt say YOU said" whatever"

so your little attempt at deflection is a E- fail


see you lefties are quite happy to hang even historical vileness by so called right wing (fascistgroups) onto the right

but you cry foul when "one of your own" is held up to ridicule you all....
you cannot deny this moron is a lefty.....

so in compliance with the universal rule of forum politics.......

darknessss wrote:well I dont think I actually twisted anyones words in that thread you show as an example

I may have spread the attribution around a bit but you cannot say I falsely attributed any comment to anyone...

I didnt say YOU said" whatever"

so your little attempt at deflection is a E- fail


see you lefties are quite happy to hang even historical vileness by so called right wing (fascistgroups) onto the right

but you cry foul when "one of your own" is held up to ridicule you all....
you cannot deny this moron is a lefty.....

so in compliance with the universal rule of forum politics.......

Yeah, I think you might have spread that attribution around just a little bit! I think you actually get up to that an awful lot here, where you rarely see people on the left take some lunatic right-winger and make him or her the poster child for conservatism.

It's not really fair and I don't think most people see it as anything other than mudslinging in the first place ...

I know you're not being sexist in this thread, just for the record.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

darknessss wrote:well I dont think I actually twisted anyones words in that thread you show as an example

I may have spread the attribution around a bit but you cannot say I falsely attributed any comment to anyone...

I didnt say YOU said" whatever"

so your little attempt at deflection is a E- fail


see you lefties are quite happy to hang even historical vileness by so called right wing (fascistgroups) onto the right

but you cry foul when "one of your own" is held up to ridicule you all....
you cannot deny this moron is a lefty.....

so in compliance with the universal rule of forum politics.......

Yeah, I think you might have spread that attribution around just a little bit! I think you actually get up to that an awful lot here, where you rarely see people on the left take some lunatic right-winger and make him or her the poster child for conservatism.

It's not really fair and I don't think most people see it as anything other than mudslinging in the first place ...

I know you're not being sexist in this thread, just for the record.

oh no ...of course not

countless threads linking various R/W posters to the tea party and YOUR particular bunch of R/W crazies...

I mean you chaps have it off to a fine art, thank god they are held in general to a minority....

darknessss wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

darknessss wrote:well I dont think I actually twisted anyones words in that thread you show as an example

I may have spread the attribution around a bit but you cannot say I falsely attributed any comment to anyone...

I didnt say YOU said" whatever"

so your little attempt at deflection is a E- fail


see you lefties are quite happy to hang even historical vileness by so called right wing (fascistgroups) onto the right

but you cry foul when "one of your own" is held up to ridicule you all....
you cannot deny this moron is a lefty.....

so in compliance with the universal rule of forum politics.......

Yeah, I think you might have spread that attribution around just a little bit! I think you actually get up to that an awful lot here, where you rarely see people on the left take some lunatic right-winger and make him or her the poster child for conservatism.

It's not really fair and I don't think most people see it as anything other than mudslinging in the first place ...

I know you're not being sexist in this thread, just for the record.

oh no ...of course not  

countless threads linking various R/W posters to the tea party and YOUR particular bunch of R/W crazies...

I mean you chaps have it off to a fine art, thank god they are held in general to a minority....

I stand by what I said. At any rate, I'm glad you've finally decided to stop pretending you're not a right-winger

you have NO idea of my politics...

nor how excruciatingly and exactly fairly I would apply them

the one good thing is ...NO -one would be in any doubt as to what was what

see I am not discriminatory about black or white

BUT I hate with a passion "grey"

darknessss wrote:the one good thing is ...NO -one would be in any doubt as to what was what

see I am not discriminatory about black or white

BUT I hate with a passion "grey"

And you've no doubt seen my posts about the fallacies of your "gray" theory ... but you keep misrepresenting what I believe on that front, too.

Poor baby -- he can dish it out but he can't take it.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

darknessss wrote:the one good thing is ...NO -one would be in any doubt as to what was what

see I am not discriminatory about black or white

BUT I hate with a passion "grey"

And you've no doubt seen my posts about the fallacies of your "gray" theory ... but you keep misrepresenting what I believe on that front, too.

Poor baby -- he can dish it out but he can't take it.

no perhaps i mis worded that ...or you were thinking to widely ....

I'm not on about the leftist "grey goo " here

I'm talking about policy and law and things like that...


as in that other noisy thread

Either OR.................................. no "in between compromise"

Oh, so you're saying subtlety and context aren't for you?

So this:

I mean ...one cant tust a lefty to actually understand anything more complicated than the most basic concepts

... is more psychological deflection than anything else

subtlety and context have no place in policy and law

for instance

both in parliament and a court of law...supposedly......

"the meaning of a word shall be the plain meaning of the word in english"

and the arbiter in any dispute is supposed to be the OED

not that it actually works like that....unfortunately

nor does this ( not allowing subtlety and context) disallow "mitigation" etc....

in fact correctly applied it strengthens such things..

that said ...

the same subtlety and context in open speech is a seperate matter (since that would otherwise impinge on "freedom of speech" by constaining how someone expressed themselves)


you really are not very good at this are you ...you will have to buck your ideas up....

Ben_Reilly wrote:

darknessss wrote:more lefty hyperbolics  or just plain bollocks

where .....exactly............ did i say "British women aren't interested in getting involved in the running of their country"

I think you will find that actually I SAID
" women (in general) are less political than men...so less will become "politicians"

even if that factor is only 10% its going to have an effect...

coupled with an undeniable difference in political preference its going to have an even larger difference...



Is this the new lefty tactic.....be deliberately stupid and obtuse
and deliberatly "reinterpret and reword" anything you dont wish to think about/cant cope with/doesnt fit into your imaginary world??

So what you're saying is that in general, British women prefer to keep to their knitting, fashion magazines and not doing math than they are interested in helping run their country?

Yes of course, because there are no other alternatives.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

darknessss wrote:more lefty hyperbolics  or just plain bollocks

where .....exactly............ did i say "British women aren't interested in getting involved in the running of their country"

I think you will find that actually I SAID
" women (in general) are less political than men...so less will become "politicians"

even if that factor is only 10% its going to have an effect...

coupled with an undeniable difference in political preference its going to have an even larger difference...



Is this the new lefty tactic.....be deliberately stupid and obtuse
and deliberatly "reinterpret and reword" anything you dont wish to think about/cant cope with/doesnt fit into your imaginary world??

So what you're saying is that in general, British women prefer to keep to their knitting, fashion magazines and not doing math than they are interested in helping run their country?

Yes of course, because there are no other alternatives.

Hosanna on High, if I have to explain everything to people here it's not nearly as fun. Where's that vaunted British sense for sarcasm I hear so much about?

darknessss wrote:subtlety and context have no place in policy and law

for instance

both in parliament and a court of law...supposedly......

"the meaning of a word shall be the plain meaning of the word in english"

and the arbiter in any dispute is supposed to be the OED

not that it actually works like that....unfortunately

nor does this ( not allowing subtlety and context) disallow "mitigation" etc....

in fact correctly applied it strengthens such things..

that said ...

the same subtlety and context in open speech is a seperate matter (since that would otherwise impinge on "freedom of speech" by constaining how someone expressed themselves)


you really are not very good at this are you ...you will have to buck your ideas up....

You can save your legalistic rules-worshiping bullshit; people like you are the ones who would've kept black people enslaved in the U.S. because it was the law, gosh-darnnit, and that cannot ever be questioned! Segregation is what the important men who came before us decided and society will crumble if we question their supremacy!

No wonder you like Lord of the Rings so much. Everybody stays in their place, keeps with their own and worships their dead ancestors ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes of course, because there are no other alternatives.

Hosanna on High, if I have to explain everything to people here it's not nearly as fun. Where's that vaunted British sense for sarcasm I hear so much about?

Sorry - I'm still getting used to the concept of you having a sense of humour.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes of course, because there are no other alternatives.

Hosanna on High, if I have to explain everything to people here it's not nearly as fun. Where's that vaunted British sense for sarcasm I hear so much about?

Sorry - I'm still getting used to the concept of you having a sense of humour.

You might want to look back at a lot of my posts and consider them in the light of this new information

Ben_Reilly wrote:

darknessss wrote:subtlety and context have no place in policy and law

for instance

both in parliament and a court of law...supposedly......

"the meaning of a word shall be the plain meaning of the word in english"

and the arbiter in any dispute is supposed to be the OED

not that it actually works like that....unfortunately

nor does this ( not allowing subtlety and context) disallow "mitigation" etc....

in fact correctly applied it strengthens such things..

that said ...

the same subtlety and context in open speech is a seperate matter (since that would otherwise impinge on "freedom of speech" by constaining how someone expressed themselves)


you really are not very good at this are you ...you will have to buck your ideas up....

You can save your legalistic rules-worshiping bullshit; people like you are the ones who would've kept black people enslaved in the U.S. because it was the law, gosh-darnnit, and that cannot ever be questioned! Segregation is what the important men who came before us decided and society will crumble if we question their supremacy!

No wonder you like Lord of the Rings so much. Everybody stays in their place, keeps with their own and worships their dead ancestors ...

idiot....

there is nothing in what I say that in anyway precludes changing what is wrong, indeed it can speed up that process simply because it prevents people fiddling with the law to suit themselves

It prevents the situation of something being decide on as wrong but the wrong continuing because some crafty lawyer can twist words around to mean something else....

Under My system...upon it being decided that slavery was wrong there would have been an instant absolute and enforced cessation....

no challenges, nor arguing ...done.....

look at you lot and your prescious "free speech" rules that allows discrimination openly

ours are bad becasue they are too nebulous the other way....

yours however permit and promulgate abuse....


I'm talking laws with NO interpretation, strictly and excruciatingly fairly applied.....

So you wish to make absolute laws and how do you manage that with free speech and hate speech where they obviously conflict?
If you allow the later to be free speech, then you allow anyone to be abused with hate. Nobody is afforded any protection from hate speech and thus within school, work etc many can suffer under an absolute rule system you advocate which clearly would never work. Sometimes absolute rules do not work, because there will be grey areas.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Well. If Britain is truly an equal society, there should be roughly as many male and female qualified candidates. So I think the 1/3 benchmark is discriminating against women, actually.

Unless the British believe in only having dicks in their government, which I think there's evidence for ...

That would depend on whether you include the whole population or number of female Tory MPs. There are 64 female Tory MPs, so if a third of the cabinet is female, women would be over-represented.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Well. If Britain is truly an equal society, there should be roughly as many male and female qualified candidates. So I think the 1/3 benchmark is discriminating against women, actually.

Unless the British believe in only having dicks in their government, which I think there's evidence for ...

That would depend on whether you include the whole population or number of female Tory MPs. There are 64 female Tory MPs, so if a third of the cabinet is female, women would be over-represented.

That is illogical, as you measurement is based on the Tory party female MP's and not the female population. They are thus very much under represented.

ok well lets correct things then...just go and grab however many women at randon and replace male MP's with them to "even up the" cabinet....

then see what happens next time theres a vote

they tried that here

labour "parachuted" a woman in all in the name of equality...

and our ward went from labour majority to tory majority instantly...

NOT becasue it was a woman (since the previous labour MP was a woman and well liked)...but because she was NOT from our area, and was shoved onto us in some sort of "balancing the books " excercise.....
It cost them the ward then, and they failed to get it back this time....

darknessss wrote:ok well lets correct things then...just go and grab however many women at randon and replace male MP's with them to "even up the" cabinet....

then see what happens next time theres a vote

they tried that here

labour "parachuted" a woman in all in the name of equality...

and our ward went from labour majority to tory majority instantly...

NOT becasue it was a woman (since the previous labour MP was a woman and well liked)...but because she was NOT from our area, and was shoved onto us in some sort of "balancing the books " excercise.....
It cost them the ward then, and they failed to get it back this time....

Never made a point on the equality around MP's except to Rags poor measurement

You cannot force MP's in as much as you can in regards to ethnicity, sexuality etc.
People are voted in at the end of the day, and its down to a party to see who is best serving an area. Mind you the young SNP lady, smashed her way in with very little experince, so sometimes it can work as seen more with how people voted for the SNP. I though am all for people who are best for the job being voted for.

Nemesis wrote:

darknessss wrote:ok well lets correct things then...just go and grab however many women at randon and replace male MP's with them to "even up the" cabinet....

then see what happens next time theres a vote

they tried that here

labour "parachuted" a woman in all in the name of equality...

and our ward went from labour majority to tory majority instantly...

NOT becasue it was a woman (since the previous labour MP was a woman and well liked)...but because she was NOT from our area, and was shoved onto us in some sort of "balancing the books " excercise.....
It cost them the ward then, and they failed to get it back this time....

Never made a point on the equality around MP's except to Rags poor measurement

You cannot force MP's in as much as you can in regards to ethnicity, sexuality etc.
People are voted in at the end of the day, and its down to a party to see who is best serving an area. Mind you the young SNP lady, smashed her way in with very little experince, so sometimes it can work as seen more with how people voted for the SNP. I though am all for people who are best for the job being voted for.

exactly

all and any post should be gained on merit.....and nothing else...

if that leads. for whatever reason, to a gender bias or a racial bias then thats how it is

It might of course be prudent to see if there is a sound (as opposed to a convenient political hammer) reason for such biases and address that if necessary...but beyond that there should NOT be "enforced leveling"

Man or woman, whoever is best at the job. it's simple really

nicko wrote:Man or woman,   whoever is best at the job.    it's simple really

that's right..

Is that man ever able to make a post without being pompous, critical, or up himself?

The point is that if women particularly wanted women in parliament, they would have voted for women, and if women wanted to be MPs they would stand for Parliament.

If, for some bizarre reason, a company decides it wants to hire a proportionate number of men and women, they would hire on the basis of who applied, not on the basis of how many men and women there were in the country.

In any case, it's stupid to decide to have a quota. That's positive discrimination, and it sucks.

Cameron shouldn't have said anything - he should just appoint his cabinet without mentioning the gender of the people he wants.