Women should make up at least 45% of MPs by law says Britain's equality committee

[Sunseeker]

100%. Men got the first 10,000 years. Women should get the next 10,000 years. It's only fair.

With alternating Sundays and Leap Years.

[Sorshen]

Tennisace shitposting train never stops, eh?

[Deleted]

Great news.

[Blur4stuff]

I agree that skill and merit should be most important. But, that isn't an issue for every kind of job. There's plenty of women able to do good work in government positions. It's not about them having the right knowledge or experience. It's about how we place people in those positions.

When it comes to politics, the most qualified and competent person isn't necessarily the one that wins.

[Aggrophobic]

No, let's not force people to adhere to some idealistic quota that doesn't correlate with reality. If there aren't many women in politics it's because of a lack of interest or qualification, no one's barring them from it.

Actually, thats not quite true.
Men are more likely to hire men. Women are more likely to hire women.

It has little to do with "interest or qualification". If you only have women at a position, men are much less likely to get in.

[Trassk]

If any woman that applies themselves to politics does the job equally as a man then thats all good. Just because the strive for equality says you need more women 'ecauz feminzazums' doesn't seem like a smart way of going about it. If ANY PERSON is capable of doing the job then let them do and give it there all, gender doesn't matter.

[Kalis]

There shouldn't be any forced representation, otherwise you end up with Jess Phillips and we don't need more of them.

If women want to get into British politics, then there are already inspirational females who have held the top job they can try to emulate.



Both of them Conservative Prime Ministers. Truly the Tories are the party who understand that equality should be about opportunity not outcome, the ones who make us the land of hope and glory, the mother of the free, how shall we extol thee, who are born of thee?

In the meantime, Labour have Compo from Last of the Summer Wine.

[Deleted]

Percentages like these are stupid, that is really all that needs to be said about it.

[d00mGuArD]

1) MERITOCRACY. Never set such quotas. Whomever is best for the job should get the job regardless of gender/color/race/species/disabilities/whateverities.
2) DEMOCRACY. Whomever people VOTE FOR, should get the spot.

People vote for Jimmy.
Some guys decide that Jimmy will not become MP because we have too many male MPs and Debbie will get the spot.
Who decides that?! The possibilities for abuse are endless.

[Dhrizzle]

1) MERITOCRACY. Never set such quotas. Whomever is best for the job should get the job regardless of gender/color/race/species/disabilities/whateverities.
2) DEMOCRACY. Whomever people VOTE FOR, should get the spot.

People vote for Jimmy.
Some guys decide that Jimmy will not become MP because we have too many male MPs and Debbie will get the spot.
Who decides that?! The possibilities for abuse are endless.

In the UK's democratic system the political parties choose which candidates will stand for election in a constituency (with very few, usually unsuccessful independent candidates running) and voters are far more likely to vote based on the party they represent. The proposed changes will make the major political parties field more women candidates to ensure a more balanced representation in parliament.

[Total Crica]

Actually, thats not quite true.
Men are more likely to hire men. Women are more likely to hire women.

It has little to do with "interest or qualification". If you only have women at a position, men are much less likely to get in.

How do you even prove bias like that?

I mean, accuse, sure, but prove how?

[tankbug]

Women should make 45% of all frontline losses in conflicts. Send them into minefields till quota is reached.

Cherrypick much?

I think it only applies to goals.

[Deleted]

No, let's not force people to adhere to some idealistic quota that doesn't correlate with reality. If there aren't many women in politics it's because of a lack of interest or qualification, no one's barring them from it.

Lol. They are probably too busy at home doing chores and nagging.

Have you looked at a calender recently?

- - - Updated - - -

The number of parliamentary seats is fixed so there is no quantity issue. The quality of our elected representatives is an issue, but I doubt gender equality will fix that.

It wont do any harm.

Picking candidates at random would be an improvment over our current jobs for the boys system.

[W1sp]

Enforcing equality of outcome is dumb (regardless of profession and the minority genders within it) and is likely to lead to less competent people taking up the job.

I'm all for equality of opportunity and thoroughly support ensuring it is maintained, but people should be free to pursue whatever professions they wish without the government playing the numbers.

There are no barriers to entry for women in politics in Britain. We are on our second female prime minister now (funnily enough both of them have been Tory). Women are just less likely to pursue a career in politics.

So much this. It sums up everything I think about this whole idea.

/10 char

[Polar1]

Bachelet's first government in Chile made similar statements: ministries were allocated to genders based on quotas. Six months later she had replaced most of the women ministers as they were not experienced enough to handle current matters. To have a balanced gender State you need to groom people for the positions. When anybody declares that a minimum percentage of positions should be held by women please keep in mind that it means that, if starting now, the preparation of a generation of female ministers of the executive power or experienced parliament members will take 15-20 years. That may seem a lot to those younger but it isn't that long.

[Deleted]

We should do a comprehensive poll of the english population taking into account
1. Gender
2. Sexual orientation
3. Age
4. Race
5. Immigrant or not
6. Previous workplace
7. Suffers from some disability (and what kind)
etc.

After that is all done we can ensure that all fat amputees between the ages 20-30 who immigrated from Iraq and is a pansexual demiqueer and previously worked as a phone operator are properly represented by a similar MP. Or we could just go with the people most qualified for the job. Whichever makes more sense i guess.

[DJ117]

Been a thing in Scandinavia for years, even for university/collage entries you're given a easier time being accepted if your education path is gender unequal.
Example:
Nurse school - men get inn easier.
Police school - women get inn easier.
*note that they still have to produce equal results in tests and exams to graduate.

I work in a school and when I started there there was around 6 times as many female workers there, now (2 years later) it's almost half and half. I'm not surprised if better applicants were thrown aside to get more men.

Quotas are used only by Sweden. We are not as stupid as them in Denmark and Norway.

[Deleted]

Anti meritocratic policies is how you grind down a civilization, it's an objective downgrade to the previous system. Best of luck Britain.

[ati87]

That's a stupid ass question, the threshold should be 0%.

Best person for the job, if they are white male .

Here fixed it for ya.

This their is a reason why companies and governments are saying ''we need a more diverse group of people'' because they are seeing that good people aren't getting hired because people they aren't white males (or Asians males).

[zenkai]

There should be no % at all. Who is the best for the job, regarless of gender.

But what you said it logical and full of common sense, we don't operate like this in this world.