mixed feelings only with regards to the interpretations of the measure.
i'm in general in favour of all kind of gender quotas especially the electoral ones, appreciating them not as equality of result but as equality of opportunity :) (ha! don't get me started)
[openid: in love with the semantic web mmm, before googleing it up, i thought it was quite romantic but nah, still a cynical bastard! haha. ελπίζω να εγκλιματίστηκες!]
So, if you're all for gender quotas then you should be all for race quotas for instance (i'm just playing devils advocate here, don't think of me as a sexist/racist) I tend to agree with the passenger, changes like that should only come as organic as they can get, setting up laws and quotas or whatever can only lead to more discrimination, sexism, racism etc...
Semantic is the future luv, embrace it! (ναι, τα κατάφερα να γινω μέρος της αθήνας ξανά, αφού κόντεψα να σκοτωθώ 3-4 φορές στα φανάρια γιατί δοκίμασα ο χαζός να περάσω με πράσινο ... )
point taken, and I am in favour of all minorities being given an opportunity. It is not either/or, I just choose to talk about women. However, I would like to know why is this the first argument men bring forward? (all men with whom I've discussed gender quotas anyway). It can't be because they care so much about minorities. There must be sth else bothering them. I would love your opinion on that.
We like it or not (I surely don't), all these decades of talk of gender equality, parity at work, proclamations etc have produced really little. Global research proves time and again that women are still far behind men with regards to salaries, political representation, general rights and privileges with no well justified reason. And this only in the well-off, educated western world. So, it has to be top down action. As top down decisions have been the abolition of slavery, civil rights, the first rights given to women. Simple. :)
And I disagree that they will only breed problems. They might at the beginning but people get accustomed. (see for example the reactions when the vote was first given to women)
So make some room at the board of the new company for me. I don't need an office as long as the meetings take place at Brick lane :P
Well, slavery and the right for women to vote are -in my mind- totally different things than setting a 10,20,40% quota for businesses (with shareholders) to follow. They are fundamental rights for all human beings.
Let me raise a question here. Political representation, ok? Since women have the same rights as men i can't really understand why we need a 10% quota (Greek parliament) for female representatives. After all, half of the voters are women and probably most of them aren't biased against women (as most men probably are). So, i would expect the percentage of women representatives to grow higher than 10% (decade by decade) without even having the need to implement a law that forces political parties to 'enroll' women on their lists (with contradictory results as far as Greece is concerned). What i'm saying is that the low percentage of women in politics isn't just a 'male networking kinda thing' and so it's something that -imho- can't just be fixed by legislation. It's a bottom-up action but that takes time right?
On the other hand, i might be totally wrong.
(προσπαθώ, προσπαθώ αλλά η παραβατικότητα είναι πιο συχνή και από την ηλιοφάνεια στη σαχάρα)
(γιατί μιλάμε αγγλικά; για το διεθνές μας κοινό; :) το γυρνάω)
είναι όντως εντελώς διαφορετικά. είπα να βάλω μία παρένθεση που να λέει ότι παίρνω μεγάλη ελευθερία που τα βάζω δίπλα δίπλα αλλά φαντάστηκα πως θα φαίνεται ότι τα χρησιμοποιώ ως παράδειγμα για τη διαφορά μεταξύ grasroot και top-down δράσης. Κακά τα ψέμματα, όσο και αν η πίεση έρχεται απο κάτω, policies are topdown.
τα μαθηματικά σου είναι λάθος, τα πράγματα δε λειτουργούν έτσι. (Βλ. Ομπάμα ή Κλίντον στις ΗΠΑ). Και το male networking -το οποίο δεν λειτουργεί μόνο μεταξύ ανδρών, mind you - δεν είναι το μόνο πρόβλημα αλλά ο κυρίαρχος ηγεμονικός λόγος από τον οποίο απουσιάζουν παντελώς οι γυναίκες. Το είπα και πιο πάνω με το "equality of result vs equality of opportunity": εμένα δε με ενδιαφέρει το 40% της βουλής να είναι γυναίκες (equality of result) αλλά να τους δίνεται η δυνατότητα (equality of opportunity). Κάνοντας έναν μικρό παραλληλισμό αυτό έγινε και στη Νορβηγία: αφού δεν τους δινόταν η ευκαιρία παρά την ισότητα σε προσόντα, παιδεία κλπ, πάρθηκε ένα πιο αποφασιστικό μέτρο. Ρίξε μια ματιά στο λινκ του νέου ποστ, έχει ενδιαφέροντα στοιχεία.
τι ωραία να τα λέγαμε στο ραφ τρέηντ αυτά σαν άνθρωποι, να σε προσηλύτιζα με την ησυχία μου, ε;
:)
υγ. κουβέντα για τη θέση μου στο board of directors, huh?
I don't know, there are race quotas in US businesses for example but I don't see the condition of the African Americans improving much because of it.They are still way poorer than the white population and still far more likely to end up in jails.
In any case, if we are discussing whether quotas are a violation of human rights with respect to equal access to work etc then I say that yes, they are. Now whether it is acceptable to violate some human rights in order to achieve some "greater good" is a different subject.
no, passenger, i am afraid quotas do not constitute any violation of rights. in many cases they are actually included in countries' constitutions or laws. it's pity this post led you to this conclusion. if i felt up for it, i would write more extensively, unfortunately i don't
10 Comments:
don't see you commenting on that... mixed feelings?
i was out all day so was too tired to comment.
mixed feelings only with regards to the interpretations of the measure.
i'm in general in favour of all kind of gender quotas especially the electoral ones, appreciating them not as equality of result but as equality of opportunity :) (ha! don't get me started)
[openid: in love with the semantic web mmm, before googleing it up, i thought it was quite romantic but nah, still a cynical bastard! haha. ελπίζω να εγκλιματίστηκες!]
Gender relations can only change from the bottom up. Moves such as these will only foster resentment and will be useless in the long term.
i think the history of human rights, abolition of discriminations, of minorities' struggles etc prove exactly the opposite, the passenger
So, if you're all for gender quotas then you should be all for race quotas for instance (i'm just playing devils advocate here, don't think of me as a sexist/racist)
I tend to agree with the passenger, changes like that should only come as organic as they can get, setting up laws and quotas or whatever can only lead to more discrimination, sexism, racism etc...
Semantic is the future luv, embrace it! (ναι, τα κατάφερα να γινω μέρος της αθήνας ξανά, αφού κόντεψα να σκοτωθώ 3-4 φορές στα φανάρια γιατί δοκίμασα ο χαζός να περάσω με πράσινο ... )
point taken, and I am in favour of all minorities being given an opportunity. It is not either/or, I just choose to talk about women. However, I would like to know why is this the first argument men bring forward? (all men with whom I've discussed gender quotas anyway). It can't be because they care so much about minorities. There must be sth else bothering them. I would love your opinion on that.
We like it or not (I surely don't), all these decades of talk of gender equality, parity at work, proclamations etc have produced really little. Global research proves time and again that women are still far behind men with regards to salaries, political representation, general rights and privileges with no well justified reason. And this only in the well-off, educated western world. So, it has to be top down action. As top down decisions have been the abolition of slavery, civil rights, the first rights given to women. Simple. :)
And I disagree that they will only breed problems. They might at the beginning but people get accustomed. (see for example the reactions when the vote was first given to women)
So make some room at the board of the new company for me. I don't need an office as long as the meetings take place at Brick lane :P
(πρόσεχε με τη μηχανή, πληζ)
This is gonna be a tricky one, i'm sure...
Well, slavery and the right for women to vote are -in my mind- totally different things than setting a 10,20,40% quota for businesses (with shareholders) to follow. They are fundamental rights for all human beings.
Let me raise a question here. Political representation, ok? Since women have the same rights as men i can't really understand why we need a 10% quota (Greek parliament) for female representatives. After all, half of the voters are women and probably most of them aren't biased against women (as most men probably are). So, i would expect the percentage of women representatives to grow higher than 10% (decade by decade) without even having the need to implement a law that forces political parties to 'enroll' women on their lists (with contradictory results as far as Greece is concerned). What i'm saying is that the low percentage of women in politics isn't just a 'male networking kinda thing' and so it's something that -imho- can't just be fixed by legislation. It's a bottom-up action but that takes time right?
On the other hand, i might be totally wrong.
(προσπαθώ, προσπαθώ αλλά η παραβατικότητα είναι πιο συχνή και από την ηλιοφάνεια στη σαχάρα)
(γιατί μιλάμε αγγλικά; για το διεθνές μας κοινό; :) το γυρνάω)
είναι όντως εντελώς διαφορετικά. είπα να βάλω μία παρένθεση που να λέει ότι παίρνω μεγάλη ελευθερία που τα βάζω δίπλα δίπλα αλλά φαντάστηκα πως θα φαίνεται ότι τα χρησιμοποιώ ως παράδειγμα για τη διαφορά μεταξύ grasroot και top-down δράσης. Κακά τα ψέμματα, όσο και αν η πίεση έρχεται απο κάτω, policies are topdown.
τα μαθηματικά σου είναι λάθος, τα πράγματα δε λειτουργούν έτσι. (Βλ. Ομπάμα ή Κλίντον στις ΗΠΑ). Και το male networking -το οποίο δεν λειτουργεί μόνο μεταξύ ανδρών, mind you - δεν είναι το μόνο πρόβλημα αλλά ο κυρίαρχος ηγεμονικός λόγος από τον οποίο απουσιάζουν παντελώς οι γυναίκες. Το είπα και πιο πάνω με το "equality of result vs equality of opportunity": εμένα δε με ενδιαφέρει το 40% της βουλής να είναι γυναίκες (equality of result) αλλά να τους δίνεται η δυνατότητα (equality of opportunity). Κάνοντας έναν μικρό παραλληλισμό αυτό έγινε και στη Νορβηγία: αφού δεν τους δινόταν η ευκαιρία παρά την ισότητα σε προσόντα, παιδεία κλπ, πάρθηκε ένα πιο αποφασιστικό μέτρο. Ρίξε μια ματιά στο λινκ του νέου ποστ, έχει ενδιαφέροντα στοιχεία.
τι ωραία να τα λέγαμε στο ραφ τρέηντ αυτά σαν άνθρωποι, να σε προσηλύτιζα με την ησυχία μου, ε;
:)
υγ. κουβέντα για τη θέση μου στο board of directors, huh?
I don't know, there are race quotas in US businesses for example but I don't see the condition of the African Americans improving much because of it.They are still way poorer than the white population and still far more likely to end up in jails.
In any case, if we are discussing whether quotas are a violation of human rights with respect to equal access to work etc then I say that yes, they are. Now whether it is acceptable to violate some human rights in order to achieve some "greater good" is a different subject.
no, passenger, i am afraid quotas do not constitute any violation of rights. in many cases they are actually included in countries' constitutions or laws. it's pity this post led you to this conclusion. if i felt up for it, i would write more extensively, unfortunately i don't
take care
Post a Comment
<< Home