Herald on man ban

July 8th, 2013 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

The editorial:

Just when the country imagined women were doing well in politics, particularly in the Party, the party’s organisational wing says they are not. It is so worried that women do not yet fill half the party’s seats in Parliament it might allow electorates to ban males from selection as the candidate. Predictably, the “” has been ridiculed from all sides but if Labour wants to do it, why not?

I hope they do!

 They have set a goal of a 50-50 gender balance in their caucus and women make up only 41 per cent so far. To reach perfect equilibrium by the election after next, they may need to turn away good men. Local electorate committees may be able to seek permission of the party’s New Zealand council to say that only women need apply for their selection.

If this is repugnant to the meaning of equal opportunity in most people’s minds, it is not foreign to Labour thinking.

What is amazing is that the political leadership did not see this coming. blogs on this at Frontpage:

Make no mistake this “Man Ban” furore has raised potentially fatal questions about David Shearer’s leadership of the Labour Party.

Here at “The Nation” last week we got a front row view of just how dysfunctional the Shearer leadership machine is.

First up, it is mind boggling that it was left to Cameron Slater and his “Whaleoil” blog to reveal that the party was proposing to allow women-only  candidate selections as part of a bid to evenly balance its gender representation by 2017.

This proposal is part of the party’s Organisational Review which began work last year.

Its proposals have already surfaced at a national conference; at local LECs and at regional conferences.

They then went to the party’s Policy Council.

Either Mr Shearer is so out of touch with what is happening inside his own party or alternatively — as one Labour source suggested to me over the weekend – he simply wasn’t listening.

But nor, apparently, were the rest of the caucus.

The Herald continues:

Positive discrimination is central to the philosophy and character of the Labour Party. It does not believe in equal opportunity but in equal outcomes, which it believes require the playing field to be tilted in favour of those disadvantaged by race, gender or relative poverty. The “man ban”, even if the executive backs away from the idea in public, is a good defining issue for voters.

I think that is a key difference between National and Labour – the focus on equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities.

To anybody who shares Labour’s belief that women are inherently disadvantaged in competition with men, an idea as drastic as the “man ban” will show how determined a Labour government would be to address remaining gender imbalances in all walks of life.

Imagine what quotas will be introduced by a Labour/Green Government?

Tags: , , , , ,

91 Responses to “Herald on man ban”

  1. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    “I think that is a key difference between National and Labour – the focus on equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities. Imagine what quotas will be introduced by a Labour/Green Government?”

    I don’t think this is right at ll. There are plenty of examples of the National Party endorsing quotas-

    The Government is actively working to appoint more women to state sector boards and to encourage the private sector to increase the number of women in leadership roles. There is compelling evidence that greater gender diversity in governance correlates with better decision making and organisational performance, providing economic and other benefits. My Government has a target of 45 per cent of women on state sector boards by 2015. It is currently running at 41 per cent.

    http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?articleId=38969

    The National Government is committed to increasing the numbers of women on state and private sector boards. We are committed to achieving 45 percent on state sector boards and we are delighted to see our target of 10 percent on private sector boards already exceeded. The number of women on the boards of the top 100 companies listed on the New Zealand Stock Exchange reached 14.75 percent in 2012, up from 9.3 percent in 2010.

    http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=40568

    More women in leadership has benefits for organisational performance at both the management and governance level, as demonstrated by the significant body of research that cites the link between gender diversity in leadership and positive outcomes for organisations.

    http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?articleId=38969

    The Ministry is also working with a group of business leaders, the 25 Per cent Group, on how companies can increase the number of women in senior roles. The group has set a target of 25 per cent women on our top 100 company boards by 2015.

    http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?articleId=38070

    As I have already mentioned, today’s theme is ‘Equality means Business’, so this will be my focus. Making better use of women’s skills is vital to improving the performance of New Zealand businesses and to strengthening our economy. As I have outlined, the Government is committed to increasing women’s participation on state sector boards, but the need for change is more urgent in the private sector. In fact, New Zealand is behind other developed economies on private sector board participation. Women hold only 9.3 percent of the board roles in the top 100 companies on the New Zealand Stock Market and only 21 percent of senior management positions.

    http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?articleId=38070

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. hubbers (139 comments) says:

    I support the man ban in the same way I have supported quotas for South African rugby teams for many years. You know it means they might not pick the best team and you know that will lead to disharmony and resentment.

    And that can only be good for the people playing against then.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    I think that is a key difference between National and Labour – the focus on equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities.

    That’s the best laugh I’ve had in a while.

    In other words, National doesn’t give a toss if women are paid less than men, or suffer other forms of discrimination. Let’s just imagine that they have the same opportunities and so we can ignore the outcomes! Brilliant.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 29 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    ross69, you must be laughing at yourself. You have now been drafted to work in a child care centre to ensure equal outcomes for men and women. That’s what you want isn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Chuck Bird (4,895 comments) says:

    “National doesn’t give a toss if women are paid less than men”

    I just watched the Wimbledon final. Should Murray get paid more than the female winner as he had to play an extra set?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    I do not buy into this “man ban” slogan or its propagation by Kiwiblog and Whaleoil.

    I think it has all the hallmarks of a catchy campaign phrase.

    I think this is a smoke screening campaign organised by the National Party, and I think it is immensely hypocritical and cynical when National in reality endorse (as the above quotes show) the same kind of Marxist rubbish in their own speeches and policies.

    The question now in my mind is “why was this campaign necessary?” To me it looks as if someone in the National strategy dept said “we have to do something, who has got an idea?”

    But do something about what?

    Well that is the question. The only thing that was in the public eye before this blew up was the GCSB enquiry.

    I reckon it has to be something connected with that.

    But what event occurred at the GCSB inquiry that National might want to divert public attention from?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Fletch (6,408 comments) says:

    There is an image on facebook of Louisa Wall going around (in her Joseph’s coat of many colours) with the caption –

    Staunchly opposed former NZ marriage laws because they discriminated based on the gender of the spouses.
    Publicly supports new Labour Party policy that will discriminate based on the gender of the candidates

    Says it all really. Pretty hypocritical. Oppose the law when it suits you.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    I think that is a key difference between National and Labour – the focus on equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities.

    There is no difference between the two, really. Any measure of inequality of outcome, examined deeply enough, will reveal an inequality of opportunity (by a definition of opportunity that makes it relevant to the question of equality or justice.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. vibenna (305 comments) says:

    National has a very low percentage of women as MPs. That implies either that women are not as capable as men, or that they are seriously disadvantaged in becoming National Party MPs. I prefer the second explanation.

    Does National care about their discrimination against women? Sure, it might not be overt discrimination, but how else do you explain their woeful record on female MPs?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Bob (497 comments) says:

    To my mind what the Labour should do is encourage a lot more women to join the party so that more talented women will emerge naturally. The trouble is Labour are ideologues unlike National which is pragmatic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. tvb (4,430 comments) says:

    The man ban policy will not guarantee 50/50 representation in parliament. For that they will need to address the list. I assume they will need alternating men and women on the list. Labour would be better to drop the man ban thing which will not achieve much and focus on the list. Alternating men and women will not raise too many hackles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Lance (2,662 comments) says:

    @vibenna
    So according to your logic there should be gender based quotas for all professions and drastic action until the ratio is 50:50?

    Yes that would work..

    You know, loggers, engineers, pre-school teachers etc

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    @Ryan, correlation is not causation. Your argument is backwards inference. You start with an inequality of outcome and hunt for some plausible difference in opportunity which you then assert to be the cause. But you omit the necessary proof by equalising that opportunity and showing that outcomes follow.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. backster (2,174 comments) says:

    Labour needs to copy the Greens and appoint a female co-leader. That would help Shearer handle a job that appears beyond his capability. Cindy although the most capable and best looking, would probably dominate if chosen for the spot, but Nanaia is waiting in the wings and would appeal to Maori and would be a front row match for the Greens Co-Leader.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Manolo (13,837 comments) says:

    Nanaia is waiting in the wings and would appeal to Maori and would be a front row match for the Greens Co-Leader

    Not at all. Mahuta is as lazy as you can imagine; someone who will avoid work at any cost.
    Compared to her, Parakura was a dedicated and exemplary worker!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. edhunter (547 comments) says:

    What a fucking joke, I’m assuming this will be run out across the state sector first so can we expect to see a womanification of the police force, armed services, fire etc & a manification of nurses, primary school teachers?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. MT_Tinman (3,204 comments) says:

    Equal outcome instead of equal opportunity brings the top down to the bottom rather than lifts the bottom up to equal the top.

    Surely nothing else displays the left’s political leanings so perfectly.

    The “man-ban” will happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    @Ryan, correlation is not causation. Your argument is backwards inference. You start with an inequality of outcome and hunt for some plausible difference in opportunity which you then assert to be the cause. But you omit the necessary proof by equalising that opportunity and showing that outcomes follow.

    No, I start with the logical necessity of the two being functionally identical in all the relevant ways, and note in passing that evidence tends to support things that are logically necessary.

    If there was equality of opportunity, there would be a general equality of outcome. Why would there not? There may not be equality of outcome for every individual (acts of God, etc.), but there would be equality of outcome between every demographic segment that can be defined by morally irrelevant characteristics: race, sex, gender, etc.

    In other words, if there was equality of opportunity, there would be unpredictability of outcome at the point of birth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Left Right and Centre (2,986 comments) says:

    vibenna 10:59 am You’ve got to do some reading. Social history. When feminism movement started. Psychology. Gender differences. Nature vs nurture. Number patterns.

    You’re on one level, there’s at least one more.

    Ask yourself why there aren’t as many women MPs? Why is that?

    One possible factor: The age group of people in charge at the moment are aged mostly and typically 40+. 40-70?

    And what was society like when that age group were growing up? A very different NZ to the current one. Very different. So… people about 50+ or 55+… yep, that’s when you had a sexist society. Numbers of women in workforce and types of job they were expected to enter were more limited than today, which limits who has come through now at the ‘age of power’.

    Another possible factor: Men and women are just wired up differently *overall*. So… I’m speculating… educated guess… that because the studies show that men are more driven by the need for power, status and achievement… well… you’re going to get more men pushing for positions of power and authority, leadership, influence etc. The driven need to succeed. Men overall seem to be more competitive.

    Then there’s the motherhood aspect. Helen Clark was childless. That admittedly is a simple limited example but still… it’s a fact… she was childless. Nothing got in the way of the countless hours she put in that kept her on top. Some women have careers and children and rise to greatness… sure. Children are more likely to disadvantage women more than men from having the time and energy to put into heavy political activity. So it just means that numerically there are probably going to be more men striving at the top. So if you were picking a chess team and 75% of the best players happened to be men, would you pick 50% women?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    @Ryan, you have redefined yourself into a circular argument. Heavens knows what you mean by “morally irrelevant” as well.

    I’ll poke a hole in it via the most elementary observation: female babies pay more attention than male babies to human faces. Now redefine the word “opportunity” to explain that.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    I don’t know what you are smoking Ryan but you aren’t making sense. There are many physical and cultural differences between people which will lead to different outcomes, whatever the “opportunity”.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    There is an image on facebook of Louisa Wall going around (in her Joseph’s coat of many colours) with the caption –

    Staunchly opposed former NZ marriage laws because they discriminated based on the gender of the spouses.
    Publicly supports new Labour Party policy that will discriminate based on the gender of the candidates

    Says it all really. Pretty hypocritical. Oppose the law when it suits you.

    Do you have a link? I would like to use it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Left Right and Centre (2,986 comments) says:

    edhunter 11:27 am You already see in the news assaults on female coppers. And although that’s awful… being the loathsome prick that I am I can’t help but think ‘yeah, well…. if they let tiny small-framed police women cruise the mean streets, this is what happens- duh’.

    All the training in the world eh… a massive size difference is not a good start to any physical confrontation. I would think the same way if it was a small bloke. Graduating a 5’5″ 67kg man… let’s face it… punks are thinking ‘I can take this little piggy no trouble’.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    If there was equality of opportunity, there would be a general equality of outcome. Why would there not?

    Well that is very simple Ryan, so simple in fact that we have a long standing traditional (possibly about to be redefined?) saying that goes thusly:

    “You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make it drink”.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Left Right and Centre (2,986 comments) says:

    And what you’ll see coming through with every 5 or 10 year click… is a more even split between the sexes…. those who are suitably qualified in terms of their working life, their political ability and strength of personality, character and life experience. I’d guess it’s unlikely ever to even out completely… because for eg ‘women being women’ they tend to, overall more so than men, shy away from positions of power and authority.

    Because the later generation/s of girls/ women born in the 60s/70s onwards haven’t been told what they can’t do- only what is possible if they want to try it out. It became perfectly acceptable and expected that they achieve as highly as possible at school, get training, become qualified, have a career etc.

    There’s plenty of very smart, strong, determined young women out there who have no concept of sexism or that they are in any way different or disadvantaged to a like-minded bloke. They’re just going for it with no hang-ups whatsoever. When they hit the ‘age of power’ look out.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. wreck1080 (3,923 comments) says:

    Labours man ban sounds just like an episode from “married with children”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    @LRaC: “When they hit the ‘age of power’ look out.”

    Huh, you haven’t met them on the roads already?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Left Right and Centre (2,986 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull 11:41 am Why aren’t there more female tradespeople? Why are so many job sectors male-dominated?

    Is there anything stopping a woman working in those industries? Nope. So…. why then?

    Social programming? No, you don’t want to do that, that’s a boys job? Is it the physical disadvantage to a greater or lesser degree?

    Could it be…. choice? They choose not to? Are we allowed to say that some jobs are more suitably ‘feminine’ and some more suitably ‘masculine’?

    The opportunities are equal, and yet the same old skewed patterns remain largely unchanged. Why is that? Choices. Nature. Nurture. Men tend to to do xyz… women tend to do xyz… to a point you can make patterns that hold with exceptions…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    I’ll poke a hole in it via the most elementary observation: female babies pay more attention than male babies to human faces. Now redefine the word “opportunity” to explain that.

    If you think that’s poking a hole in anything, I obviously haven’t explained clearly enough.

    Let’s start with this. What do you mean by “equality of opportunity”? And if you’re in favour of it, what makes it good?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Left Right and Centre (2,986 comments) says:

    Alan Wilkinson 12:11 pm I like circular arguments. At least you can’t paint yourself into a corner.

    I try to be stereotype neutral on the roads… being all PC and non-judgemental and unassuming. Yeah… it’s always a woman making a dog’s breakfast of a parking space. That gives me no pleasure at all.

    Anecdotally… I’ve met and heard of women that won’t drive if *it’s raining* or… a bit windy. Um…. yeah, ok. I’ve never met a bloke that cautious. I love women that are on to it drivers. I like people who are on to it drivers. My own observation.. more women in the clueless dork/ weirdo driving style category… more men in the ‘make your day’ category.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    The easy option is to laugh all of this insanity off. But that would be a mistake.

    What we are dealing with here are radical feminists continuing to work the tiller of Labour Party policy. In essence, radical feminism along with the left-wing sexual revolutionaries are without doubt the most destructive and fanatical movements to come out of the 60’s counter culture period. Both are revolutionary, not reformist. They are totalitarian in nature and deeply antagonistic to traditional Western culture and they propose a complete restructuring of society, morality and human nature.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    Well that is very simple Ryan, so simple in fact that we have a long standing traditional (possibly about to be redefined?) saying that goes thusly:

    “You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make it drink”.

    Sure, Shunda, but if the reason for making water available to all horses in the first place was out of concern that some of them weren’t getting any, shouldn’t it continue to be a concern that some horses aren’t drinking?

    Or, if the reason for making political power available to both men and women in the first place was out of concern that women weren’t getting political power, shouldn’t it continue to be a concern that women are underrepresented in political power?

    Or, if the reason for making the vote available to black Americans in the first place was out of concern that they weren’t having a say, shouldn’t it continue to be a concern if black Americans are underrepresented in voting?

    Etc. Etc.

    It seems to me a lazy and token nod in the direction of fairness to say, “Well, fuck, we’re not STOPPING them from getting these things. The opportunities are equal. The outcomes are unequal because I guess this sort of person just doesn’t want this stuff. Maybe it’s biological!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Akaroa (558 comments) says:

    Well, first let me apologise. Why? Because a lot of people aren’t going to like what I’m about to post. (If anyone reads it, that is!)

    Its about male nurses. The fact is that I have a deep distrust of men masquerading as female carers. Illogical? I know!. Non-PC? I know! Possibly unfair? Yep, OK!

    But I can’t just change a deep-seated, long held, personal conviction that I have that a man doing what I – (as an unconstituted Masculinist) – see as women’s work is flawed in some way personality-wise.

    I suspect there are a few more like me out there – but in this PC-beset age many prefer to stay silent, eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    Urban Redneck is damn right, and that is why it is so disappointing to see the National Party going along with this crap. Buying into the left wing narrative.

    Government departments should just be doing their jobs and not be used as a means to promote political ideas.

    And doesn’t anyone in the party vet proposed policy for Marxist origins or give any background to these kind of ideas??? I mean its not hard to discover where they originated.

    Any objective observer would be forced to the conclusion that the National Party is as deeply infested with left wing radicals and revolutionaries as the Labour party.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    It should be ruled in violation of the Human Rights Act. We are specifically not permitted to discriminate on the basis of gender, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation and a host of other things.

    The “man ban” contravenes many of those explicit definitions. While it might be good for National, it is a slippery slope that will be widened and used to advance extremist views.

    Either that or I should be allowed to advertise for my tenants and explicitly state who I’ll never pick anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    The fairer a society, the more difficult it is to predict the outcome of a child at the point of their birth.

    Biological differences have an effect, yes. A child born without legs is predictably less likely to be a champion kickboxer than a child born with legs. But a child born with brown hair should not be predictably less likely to be a champion kickboxer than a child born with red hair.

    I don’t think these thoughts are controversial. So when there is an inequality of outcome – a measurable segment of the population, as defined by these irrelevant things (sex, hair colour, etc.) being predictably less or more likely to enjoy a particular outcome – then questions should be raised about how much equality is involved in “equality of opportunity”.

    And whether or not “equality of opportunity” is being used to excuse inequality, rather than promote it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Left Right and Centre (2,986 comments) says:

    Well Ryan.. what’s the answer then fella? A lot of life is wrapped up in gender identity and career choice is no different. Some jobs are blokey. Most women wouldn’t consider them. You’re asking them to *not be women*… the reason they don’t want to do it is because it doesn’t fit in with their own social programming of what women should do. What do you put that down to? The parents? Other children when they’re young? Something within themselves?

    Why is it that 95%+ childcare jobs aren’t held by men? I’ve never met a bloke who said he was a full-time ‘nanny’. What is it all meant to look like? Maybe men just like being politicians more than women? More men want to be politicians than women?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Scott Chris (6,150 comments) says:

    And whether or not “equality of opportunity” is being used to excuse inequality, rather than promote it.

    Yes well put. Terrible thing, this prevailing culture of entitlement.

    Y’know, that some men feel entitled to more than their fair share of parliamentary seats. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    Well Ryan.. what’s the answer then fella? A lot of life is wrapped up in gender identity and career choice is no different. Some jobs are blokey. Most women wouldn’t consider them. You’re asking them to *not be women*… the reason they don’t want to do it is because it doesn’t fit in with their own social programming of what women should do. What do you put that down to? The parents? Other children when they’re young? Something within themselves?

    Why is it that 95%+ childcare jobs aren’t held by men? I’ve never met a bloke who said he was a full-time ‘nanny’. What is it all meant to look like? Maybe men just like being politicians more than women? More men want to be politicians than women?

    I’m not sure what the answer is.

    I do think that if we care about fairness, we should examine these things that are often attributed to “being a woman” or “being a man” and ask ourselves how much of that is actually biological and how much is just the expectations and pressures of society – which can be changed, and if they’re unfair, should be changed.

    Women don’t use their vaginas to be nannys. Guys don’t use their penises to be National Party MPs. (I’d bet my left testicle that some might like to.)

    Quotas and positive discrimination is one proposed solution to the problem. I’m not sure it’s the right solution, but at least it recognises the problem. People saying, “You can lead a woman to suffrage but you can’t make her vote,” aren’t even recognising the problem.

    And honestly, I believe that pretty much everyone agrees with me that a fair society is one where it’s as hard as possible to predict how someone will turn out at the point of their birth. It’s a goal we can agree on, I think. Getting there, as you say, is the challenge.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    @Ryan: ‘What do you mean by “equality of opportunity”?’

    Absence of artificial barriers. Acceptance of natural ones and freedom of choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    Absence of artificial barriers. Acceptance of natural ones and freedom of choice.

    Okay. So in a society with perfect equality of opportunity, any inequality of outcomes are due entirely to natural barriers and freedom of choice?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Left Right and Centre (2,986 comments) says:

    Gender differences are not only physical but mental as you well know.

    These deifinitions… ‘problem’… ‘fair society’. What’s a problem and what’s a fair society?

    I just don’t see a *problem* to be *fixed*. I don’t see gender imbalance as something that happens due to any kind of oppressive unfairness in 2013. Men and women in general have differences that leads to clusters of preferences that can skew to one gender or the other.

    If you offer me jellybeans… I’ll always avoid the green and yellow ones. Why? I don’t know. I just like them the least. When you ask people what motivated their choices…. they might say… blah blah …. always had an interest in or whatever. And it’s a male dominated or female dominated job…

    I think some things are the way they are a bit. I don’t think society is steering boys/ girls towards a list of gender acceptable jobs for them. Kids form gender identity at a very young age of development.. around 2-4 or something. That’s very strong. You can’t do much about that. You’re fighting nature. It’s pointless and unnecessary. That’s my view. That’s what the nerds have come up with. I can’t say they’re wrong because it’s observable all the time in life. Is there a great need for a genderless society? Is it a ‘power struggle’? Are women considered weaker or less than or disadvantaged in 2013 because they’re women? You see… I just don’t see that…. I took uni exams with young women and men and so I just don’t see them as any different to me when we all walk into an exam for eg. In that scenario we’re all a brain in a body.

    I don’t understand why there’s a need to ‘balance out’ every job 50/ 50 between genders. It looks like some jobs men and women don’t want to do, for no better reason than they simply choose not to… which has an overwhelming numerical link to their gender.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Manolo (13,837 comments) says:

    Ryan, you write like an aspiring social engineer. No wonder you support Labour!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    I don’t support Labour, Manolo. And I am not a fan of social engineering.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    I don’t understand why there’s a need to ‘balance out’ every job 50/ 50 between genders. It looks like some jobs men and women don’t want to do, for no better reason than they simply choose not to… which has an overwhelming numerical link to their gender.

    For no better reason than they simply choose not to? “Simply choose not to” is no reason at all.

    I’m not saying that every job should balance out 50/50. I think it makes sense for condom modelling to be done by guys. For some things, that makes sense.

    But in jobs where sex has no bearing on a person’s ability to perform the job, especially for positions of power (political, financial, social, whatever), inequality of outcome raises important questions.

    It’s not a problem if some people choose green jellybeans and others choose red jellybeans. It’s not even a problem if that division was down male/female lines. But when people who eat green jellybeans get paid more, have more political power, etc., then I think it is a problem worth considering.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. David Farrar (1,899 comments) says:

    I really wish people can tell the difference between a target and a quota. They are worlds apart. A quota is mandatory. A target is not.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Kleva Kiwi (289 comments) says:

    Credit where credit is due.
    I have not seen policy so profound as to alienate everybody so much equally!

    Not only is it a shot at men, its far more an attack on woman. It tells us Labour think woman cannot do the same job as men.
    I do not believe this at all. Once again the party of liars and thieves tries to invent a problem and then present not a solution, but a band-aid.
    Woman (generalized) tend to lean left more than men, hence you would typically find more woman in left parties than the right, and vice versa. Not only that, woman (once again generalized) tend to be less aggressive and address conflict in other manners. This is the strength of having both sexes in parliament.
    Introducing arbitrary quotas is not only undemocratic but sexist. Everybody has the ability to stand on their own two feet and run for government. It is up to the public to democratically elect representatives, and therefore decide whom, whether they be man, woman, fish or vegetable runs our country.
    I for one will stand with woman in shouting this down for the hyperbolic bullshit it is. Who does Labour think they actually represent other than themselves and their dictatorship? Who the hell are you to tell me how to live my life.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Ashley Schaeffer (488 comments) says:

    David Farrar (1,760) Says:
    July 8th, 2013 at 2:00 pm
    I really wish people can tell the difference between a target and a quota. They are worlds apart. A quota is mandatory. A target is not.

    One is an aim, the other is a means. But why should gender balance in any given occupation or business be an aim? Why is this an aim of the National Party?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    DPF is right when he points out the important difference between a target and a quota. A target is a hope or goal expressed, a quota is a legislated, enforced fulfilment of that goal.

    For those unable to see this effect in gender balance, lets change the the goal (target) to “an equal representation of students in each school decile in NCEA results”. A worthy goal, I think we would all agree. Yet the legislation of a QUOTA would require 10% of “Excellence” grades to be graded to decile 10, 10% to decile 9…and so on down the line, regardless of any individual student’s achievement. Stupid? yes. Discriminatory? Yes. Morally repugnant? Absolutely.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    “I really wish people can tell the difference between a target and a quota.”

    Semantics.

    The driving ideas are still the same.

    Equality is a Marxist utopian folly, and should not be used to underpin any government strategy. Neither should government departments (police, bureaucracies) be used to promote political ideas. They should just do their damn jobs.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Sure, Shunda, but if the reason for making water available to all horses in the first place was out of concern that some of them weren’t getting any, shouldn’t it continue to be a concern that some horses aren’t drinking?

    Yeah, it’s a concern, but there’s nothing you can do about it without negatively affecting the horses that want to drink.

    Or, if the reason for making political power available to both men and women in the first place was out of concern that women weren’t getting political power, shouldn’t it continue to be a concern that women are underrepresented in political power?<

    No it is of no concern because you are implying that you speak for all women and all women are concerned about this. As soon as a woman votes for a male candidate she has used her political freedom to choose her representative. Why do the left treat women as their exclusive political property?

    Or, if the reason for making the vote available to black Americans in the first place was out of concern that they weren’t having a say, shouldn’t it continue to be a concern if black Americans are underrepresented in voting?

    Etc. Etc.

    I’m sorry, I don’t accept race card, positive apartheid is no less evil than negative apartheid, it all turns to shit in the end.

    It seems to me a lazy and token nod in the direction of fairness to say, “Well, fuck, we’re not STOPPING them from getting these things. The opportunities are equal. The outcomes are unequal because I guess this sort of person just doesn’t want this stuff. Maybe it’s biological!”

    I never said anything of the sort.

    Tell me, who decides what equality is?, who defines when it has been attained?, who decides what groups need assistance and how to assist?

    This is just one big arbitrary cluster f@ck that the left have progressively foisted upon us, it is failing terribly and yet they actually want to double down and go even further!

    The results of this ideology a everywhere, even in my kids rugby league teams (well, until my wife and I put an end to it).

    I am sick and tired of being a part of this failing social experiment.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. kowtow (8,522 comments) says:

    Target/ Quota.

    Matters not,it is the intent behind it. And the intent is the same. Gender “rights” ,equality,feminism ,call it what you will it’s still Cultural Marxism.
    Cultural Marxism ,whether it’s under a red or blue banner.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    What do Labour think is the purpose of political candidacy? It is certainly not for the employment of politicians! It is about representation of the people.

    Political representation has nothing to do with replicating or mirroring the various characteristics of society, but providing individuals to advocate (represent, speak for) for the rest of us. I want someone to represent my politics, not my characteristics.

    It says little for the advocacy ability of Labour pollies if they can’t speak for anyone who doesn’t look like them. Or that they don’t trust anyone who doesn’t look like them to work effectively as a politician.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. cha (4,036 comments) says:

    Cultural Marxism

    Really?.

    Equal laws protecting equal rights — the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country.

    James Madison

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    “I am sick and tired of being a part of this failing social experiment.”

    So am I, and as a taxpayer, I am even more sick of paying for this fucking Marxist bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    Evadne – I agree, I’ve been saying similar.

    For example there’s a good reason why no one insists that we have MPs with senile dementia representing that demographic.

    And one of the biggest minorities is legally prevented from representing themselves, all those citizens under the age of 18.

    Obviously women MPs will usually be better advocates for women’s interests, but not always. And there were a lot of non-homosexual MPs advocating for marriage rights for the small gay minority.

    And there’s also the issue of what type of people voters want to be represented by. Women are about half the voters, if they all thought women MPs would best represent them they would be voting them in wihout the need for quotas or targets.

    Many women must vote for male MPs, and for parties wil a clear majority of males on their lists.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Ok, it’s time to hammer this out.

    Where are all the NZ women that are so pissed off about political gender imbalance? where are the mobs of angry bra burning women marching in the streets?

    The only women upset about this appear to be women that prefer the company of other women and people that grew up in the 60s and 70s that smoked too much weed.

    Go away you backward, tired old dinosaurs, you can shove your manufactured crisis ‘where the women don’t vote’ and crawl back to your glory decade(s) and bloody well stay there.

    Is is it so damned inconceivable that the actual truth of the matter is that women have exercised their political freedom and actually prefer a slight gender imbalance in political leadership?
    Is it so f@cking impossible to accept that the average kiwi female doesn’t share the pathological hatred of the penis like the Labour party elite would have us believe?

    Classic ideological blindness being displayed here by has been activists and their indoctrinated ‘younglings’ moving up the ranks.

    I feel sorry for people like Damien O’Connor and respect him for speaking out against the twits in his party, I don’t respect him for staying there however.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    James Madison-

    He was talking about legal discrimination against the Jewish religion. Try not abridging quotes so as to alter their meaning. (One day you’ll get something half right, you illiterate simpleton commie mungbean, but I am not holding my breath.)

    Full quote

    “Equal laws, protecting equal rights, are found, as they ought to be presumed, the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country; as well as best calculated to cherish that mutual respect and good-will among citizens of every religious denomination which are necessary to social harmony, and most favorable to the advancement of truth. “

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    Equality, like arsenic, has contradictory effects. In moderation a tonic, it becomes poisonous when indulged to excess. Equality is the basis of our law, and saturates our language and our manners to a degree far beyond any other civilisation. But to ‘equalise’ the material things people enjoy must involve severing all connection between human conduct on the one hand and material things on the other. … Only the dead weight of a massively despotic power could sustain such equality. … The notorious problem of … egalitarian societies is that large numbers of their inhabitants want to bolt.

    Kenneth Minogue

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/07/rip_kenneth_minogue.html

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    I never said anything of the sort.

    Tell me, who decides what equality is?, who defines when it has been attained?, who decides what groups need assistance and how to assist?

    Well, I’ve given a definition of fairness, Shunda, and you haven’t disagreed with it. I think the questions you’re asking should be discussed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda , you are correct. It is not women calling out for this type of policy. It is social engineering feminists out to destroy (what they consider) male dominated society. The thing they hate the most is the traditional family, which is why you will find feminists are the ones behind things like gay marriage. In fact you will find feminists behind all the extreme left ideas.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    Is is it so damned inconceivable that the actual truth of the matter is that women have exercised their political freedom and actually prefer a slight gender imbalance in political leadership?

    It’s not impossible. But if we care about fairness, I think it would be lazy and irresponsible to assume it’s that simple.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    “But if we care about fairness”

    How much freedom do you want to give up to pursue the ephemeral objective of “fairness”.

    I didn’t think you were quite that stupid Ryan.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    “The thing they hate the most is the traditional family”

    Not really, that hate is equally targeted on religion. Feminists hate religion too. Its all comes from the same Marxist roots. The intent is to destroy anything that threatens or hinders the supremacy of the state.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    How much freedom do you want to give up to pursue the ephemeral objective of “fairness”.

    I didn’t think you were quite that stupid Ryan.

    I don’t particularly want to give up any freedom, Redbaiter.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    It’s not impossible. But if we care about fairness, I think it would be lazy and irresponsible to assume it’s that simple.

    If you asked every woman in NZ whether they would prefer a woman in leadership or the best person for the role regardless of gender, what do you think they would say?

    I would bet you a million dollars what the answer would be.

    “fairness” is just as arbitrary as the definitions of ‘equality’, it is part of the larger leftist reformation of fundamental human rights based on ‘feelings’ and not logic or reason.

    This is a nonsensical policy and represents the political suicide of the Labour party.

    Quite frankly, they deserve nothing less, this issue is actually very reminiscent of some of the goings on before the 2008 election, which is astonishing because it will only reinvigorate the whole “oh faaark off” attitude NZers had toward Labour back then.

    The born to lead arrogance of this party is simply astonishing, they have not gained a shred of relevance since they lost power and show no signs of doing so.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    Ryan, while I care about living in a fair and just society, it seems my ideal looks somewhat different to yours. In my mind, having, or even wanting, a 50/50 gender split says nothing whatsoever about fairness. But even if I could be brought to believe it might be desirable, legislating it can never be fair: it would be all image and no substance.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    Wow – looks like a few of our Kiwiblog brothers are really REALLY afraid of being pushed out / marginalised by the wimmin!

    :neutral: What’s wrong with you?

    Don’t be girlie men.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    If you asked every woman in NZ whether they would prefer a woman in leadership or the best person for the role regardless of gender, what do you think they would say?

    Shunda, if you think that women are biologically less likely to pursue political power or want other women in positions of political power, fine, but if your only evidence for that is “that’s what they seem to be like at the moment”, you’ll have to do better to convince others.

    Women have got more and more involved in parliamentary politics in New Zealand before and since suffrage. Do you think their biologies are changing? Or do you think they were just getting closer and closer to their natural biological state of preferring a slight imbalance towards men in political power, and they won’t change their behaviour any more from now on?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Feminists, particularly lesbian ones, are the most rabid lefties and without a doubt are the most dour miserable and angry people you could hope to meet. Most of them are not pro women, they are just anti men. The reality is they just don’t like people very much and spend their lives being angry about it.

    Meanwhile a few million women are too busy holding down a job and getting the kids off to school to worry much about political quotas. They also like men and don’t want to rip their balls off… well sometimes maybe !

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    The arrogance of Labour goes beyond their patronising and discriminatory social engineering. It is their assumption that political candidacy is a job – positions which should be shared out “fairly” amongst those that want them.

    They seem to have missed the point that a politician’s role is one of service and representation: a tremendous responsibility, requiring great ability, character, integrity, intelligence, wisdom. They should be considering how to nurture good leaders and diligent, hard-working representatives, not spatting over the sharing out of spoils.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    Ryan, while I care about living in a fair and just society, it seems my ideal looks somewhat different to yours. In my mind, having, or even wanting, a 50/50 gender split says nothing whatsoever about fairness. But even if I could be brought to believe it might be desirable, legislating it can never be fair: it would be all image and no substance.

    I agree about legislating it being unfair, Evadne.

    My ideal is that when a child is born, they’ve got as much of a chance as any other child born that day to attain success – political, financial, academic, etc.

    A 50/50 gender split in success isn’t my goal. I just note that it would be a consequence of a fair society, which is my goal.

    Like… rosy red cheeks aren’t my goal, they’re just a consequence of being fit and healthy.

    Trying to make society fair by forcing a 50/50 gender split is like trying to get fit by painting my cheeks red.

    But the predominant attitude here is that a 50/50 gender split would not be a consequence of a fair society – mainly because the predominant attitude here is that women, all other things being equal, either want political power less than men, merit political power less than men, or would prefer men over women in positions of political power.

    Which I think is ridiculous.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    RRM, no, what your seeing is a few timid murmurs from the broken remnants of NZ men. Don’t worry your dyke loving head over it though, they won’t actually do anything. They never do.

    NZ men think the only way to impress women is to do as they say. If a woman trusts you enough to be be honest, she will tell you that is a big FAIL and a major turn off. It explains why well balanced women regard people like Pete George with the loathing and contempt they so richly deserve. At best they will consider them creepy.

    While we grovel and scrape our women moan about the lack of “real men” and fantasise over men from cultures known to be male chauvinist pigs. Sorry RRM, biology is not PC :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Evadne (88 comments) says:

    Thanks Ryan, that makes things clearer. While I agree with you in part (eg. that women merit political power as much as men), I can’t agree that a fair & equal society will ipso facto have a 50/50 gender split in politics. The very notion of diversity is that people are different, and they will make different choices. I am female, and many of my decisions in life have been affected by that – not in a negative way (usually in a good way), but affected all the same. I consider myself the equal as men, but not the same as men.

    I voted for a man in the last couple of elections and will happily do so for the rest of my life, if men of his character and ability continue to stand. This is not because he is a male, or I need men to lead me. I have also voted for women – not because they are women, but because of their character and ability. I don’t care if more men than women stand (although I would care if women were prevented from standing by virtue of their sex alone). I would care deeply if no one of character stands.

    The changing presence of women in politics reflects vast cultural changes, and is not a simple barometer of “fairness”. And while it may be a noble dream that every child when born has as much as a chance of success as every other, it “ain’t goin’ to happen”. Yes, we should care, yes, we should do what we can to address the problems, but we must not naively believe utopia can be reached with social programmes, money, politics, wealth redistribution, political party quotas, or anything else we dream up. In the immortal words of the Dread Pirate Roberts, “Life IS pain, Highness. Anyone saying otherwise is selling something.”

    (

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    Thanks Ryan, that makes things clearer. While I agree with you in part (eg. that women merit political power as much as men), I can’t agree that a fair & equal society will ipso facto have a 50/50 gender split in politics. The very notion of diversity is that people are different, and they will make different choices. I am female, and many of my decisions in life have been affected by that – not in a negative way (usually in a good way), but affected all the same. I consider myself the equal as men, but not the same as men.

    Evadne, it’s precisely because people are different and will make different choices that a fair society would have a 50/50 split in politics. (Well, that’s assuming a 50/50 split in population.) To suggest that a fair society would produce anything other than a 50/50 split in politics is to suggest that people aren’t different – that women are, en masse, acting similarly to each other, as are men.

    The changing presence of women in politics reflects vast cultural changes, and is not a simple barometer of “fairness”. And while it may be a noble dream that every child when born has as much as a chance of success as every other, it “ain’t goin’ to happen”. Yes, we should care, yes, we should do what we can to address the problems, but we must not naively believe utopia can be reached with social programmes, money, politics, wealth redistribution, political party quotas, or anything else we dream up. In the immortal words of the Dread Pirate Roberts, “Life IS pain, Highness. Anyone saying otherwise is selling something.”

    I don’t care about the impossibility of some perfectly fair utopia. That doesn’t stop it being worthwhile to pursue justice and fairness. In the immortal words of Carveth Read: “It is better to be vaguely right than exactly wrong.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    it’s precisely because people are different and will make different choices that a fair society would have a 50/50 split in politics. (Well, that’s assuming a 50/50 split in population.)

    Well no – that would require that everyone thought and acted the same as everyone else in the group they are identified with (i.e. which part of the two 50’s they are part of.)

    It is actually something other than 50/50 that evidences that people think and act differently – that their (political in this sense) thoughts and decisions are not ‘typed by gender, culture, religion, sexuality, and so on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    Well no – that would require that everyone thought and acted the same as everyone else in the group they are identified with (i.e. which part of the two 50′s they are part of.)

    It is actually something other than 50/50 that evidences that people think and act differently – that their (political in this sense) thoughts and decisions are not ‘typed by gender, culture, religion, sexuality, and so on.

    If gender does not influence the outcome of political power, then the proportion of genders in political power will approximate the proportion of genders in the population – increasingly more accurately with a larger and larger population.

    If 20% of the population has blue eyes and the society is not doing anything to encourage or discourage blue-eyed politicians, you can expect a 20/80 split between blue-eyed and non-blue-eyed politicians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    If 20% of the population has blue eyes and the society is not doing anything to encourage or discourage blue-eyed politicians, you can expect a 20/80 split between blue-eyed and non-blue-eyed politicians.

    Absolutely wrong – or incomplete, to be more accurate.

    The 20/80 split would only hold true if blue eyed people only voted for blue eyed people and vice versa. (Or if there were an exact number who each voted contra.)

    It is exactly that the results do not conform to the identity split that evidences that people [individuals] make different choices based on their own views, determinants and even prejudices – i.e. that they do not make choices solely on the basis of whichever gender, religious, cultural, etc group they belong to.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    Absolutely wrong – or incomplete, to be more accurate.

    The 20/80 split would only hold true if blue eyed people only voted for blue eyed people and vice versa. (Or if there were an exact number who each voted contra.)

    No, it would hold true if 100% of the population voted without eye colour affecting their decision at all, and 100% of the politicians pursued politics without their eye colour affecting their decision to do so at all.

    It is exactly that the results do not conform to the identity split that evidences that people [individuals] make different choices based on their own views, determinants and even prejudices – i.e. that they do not make choices solely on the basis of whichever gender, religious, cultural, etc group they belong to.

    Just think about it carefully. If eye colour has no effect on or relationship at all to people’s behaviour, and 20% of the population have blue eyes, then you can predictably expect close to 20% of any segment of that population to have blue eyes. 20% of school kids, 20% of pianists, 20% of criminals, etc.

    If you pick just 10 people at random, you can expect two of them to have blue eyes. Maybe it’s 1 or 3. If you pick 100 people at random, you can expect 20 of them to have blue eyes. Maybe it’s 17 or 21, but that’s already much less variance being off by 1 out of 10. If you pick 1000 people at random, you can expect 200 of them to have blue eyes – you’ll be a bit off, but proportionally less and less off.

    But if you pick 100,000 people at random and 40,000 of them have blue eyes, something has gone wrong – either you were wrong about the 20% number in the first place or you’re not picking randomly. If you had picked 100,000 people at random from a particular segment – say, university graduates – and found that 40,000 of them had blue eyes, you would not think, “Wow – amazing how people make different choices based on their own views.” You would think, “Why is the proportion of blue-eyed uni graduates twice as high as the proportion of blue-eyed people in the whole society? What’s causing that?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    But if you pick 100,000 people at random and 40,000 of them have blue eyes, something has gone wrong – either you were wrong about the 20% number in the first place or you’re not picking randomly.

    No, genuine randomness is more likely to explain the apparent discrepancy in that instance. By definition it won’t guarantee an exact proportional representation.

    But, more to the point of this thread, the election of politicians is not an example of random selection – it is the outcome of choice. So the mix of politicians elected will depend on the items of importance for at least a plurality of voters. It could be that eye colour is all important, is irrelevant, or has some degree of importance to each of them.

    A 20/80 split would require that: I. Blue eyed people only vote for blue eyed people, or II. They disregard eye colour but don’t have any other voting preferences that could likewise skew the result (eye colour is not the only characterisitc, and therefore potential determinant, that differentiates the choices.)

    Hence why I qualified my earlier statement with “incomplete, to be more correct”.

    Or, put another way, 50% women candidates women candidates would not necessarily result in 50% women politicians, unless they were only competing with other women.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Ryan,

    My learned drinking companions said I should have said “confounding factors.”

    They gave me an interesting example of an old, flawed study purporting to show a correlation of smoking to incidence of cervical cancer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    No, genuine randomness is more likely to explain the apparent discrepancy in that instance. By definition it won’t guarantee an exact proportional representation.

    I’ve been clear that I’m not talking about absolute precision, just a tendency towards approximation that increases with the increase of the sample size. If one 100,000-member segment of the population has twice as many blue-eyed members as the general population, and that result is repeated consistently, that’s saying something more than randomness. Yes, it could be that blue-eyed people are correlated with some other factor that is the actual cause of the discrepancy, but even in that case, it’s cause for investigation.

    A 20/80 split would require that: I. Blue eyed people only vote for blue eyed people, or II. They disregard eye colour but don’t have any other voting preferences that could likewise skew the result (eye colour is not the only characterisitc, and therefore potential determinant, that differentiates the choices.)

    I’m sure they each individually have all kinds of voting preferences, but whomever their preferred candidate is, if eye colour doesn’t affect their preference, there’s only a 20% chance of that candidate having blue eyes – and that trend, writ large, results in roughly 20% of elected officials having blue eyes. Roughly! Randomness accounts for a little deviation, but large consistent deviation suggests some other factor is in play.

    I should have said that the accuracy of that prediction increases as the number of elected officials increases, rather than the general population. Sorry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    and that trend, writ large, results in roughly 20% of elected officials having blue eyes. Roughly!

    Only if there are no other factors that influence choice (that do not exist equally to those (roughly) same proportions across that sample size.)

    The effect of “confounding factors” – the election decisions may very well be for other, very strongly held preferences that show no correlation to eye colour

    (for clarification, if eye colour was the only point of differentiation, I wouldn’t disagree.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    Only if there are no other factors that influence choice (that do not exist equally to those (roughly) same proportions across that sample size.)

    Can you give an example of what kind of other factor that must be absent for this to be true?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Harriet (4,975 comments) says:

    “….If gender does not influence the outcome of political power, then the proportion of genders in political power will approximate the proportion of genders in the population – increasingly more accurately with a larger and larger population….”

    Rubbish.

    Anyone who is ‘genuinly’ interested in entering politics knows that you need life experiance and a broad knowledge of politics and history, along with economics ect, and a good IQ.
    Thatcher entered politics later in life, after having raised twins, she was also a chemist and then trained as a lawyer. In 1975 she told the media that women have progressed in politics but they would probably not become PM in her lifetime. She was elected PM in 79 – just 4 yrs later. It’s all about the person Ryan.

    Anyone who doesn’t have these characteristics is entering politics for selfish reasons, either their own, or they are representing a minority cause where they handicap the parliment in other matters.

    Go and talk to any so-called ‘educated’ women in the NZ public service about political history and you will not here of Rome or Greece – but Helen Clarke – Lange if your lucky!

    Economics? – poverty and wealth disparity between the genders and generations is about all that you will hear – not the wealth of nations leading to better generational wealth.

    Maybe NZ’s ‘educated’ women are not represented equally in NZ politics because they arn’t selfish. :cool:

    BTW – what is the medium age, marriage status, and child bearing rate, of the women who work in the Department of Women’s Affairs?

    My guess is: 50 – divorced and/or leso – 0. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Can you give an example of what kind of other factor that must be absent for this to be true?

    – the candidate’s party alignment
    – the candidate’s views on economic policy
    – the candidate’s views on welfare policy
    – the candidate’s views on education policy
    – the candidate’s views on other policy (particularly those perceived as contentious, such as abortion, adoption, redefinition or marriage, asset sales, and so on)
    – the candidate’s articulation of vision and views – their’s and their party’s
    – the perception of the candidate’s engagement – e.g. Do they listen, show respect to other views
    – the candidate’s advocacy for family values (and what they see those as being)
    – and so on

    Or, to put it another way, there are a host of considerations people may choose to use – and each may weigh them differently, if they pay consideration to them at all – in order to decide who they vote for.

    Blue eyes, and gender, are but two of many possibles.

    A woman Labour candidate in Epsom is not going to necessarily attract more of the women’s voting, any more than a woman National candidate will in Manurewa.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    - the candidate’s party alignment
    – the candidate’s views on economic policy
    – the candidate’s views on welfare policy
    – the candidate’s views on education policy
    – the candidate’s views on other policy (particularly those perceived as contentious, such as abortion, adoption, redefinition or marriage, asset sales, and so on)
    – the candidate’s articulation of vision and views – their’s and their party’s
    – the perception of the candidate’s engagement – e.g. Do they listen, show respect to other views
    – the candidate’s advocacy for family values (and what they see those as being)
    – and so on

    And why would any of those things make them more or less likely to have blue eyes?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    A woman Labour candidate in Epsom is not going to necessarily attract more of the women’s voting, any more than a woman National candidate will in Manurewa.

    I’m not talking about attracting voting. I’m talking about the distribution of irrelevant characteristics. A woman Labour candidate in Epsom is as likely to have blue eyes as any other New Zealander. Which is as it should be. I’m saying that in a fair society, their gender would be just as irrelevant as their eye colour, and this would be demonstrated by the fact that both eye colour and gender would be distributed among politicians with the same proportions as the general populace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    @Ryan,

    The thread has been about election of politicians and how characteristics might be reflected in the outcome.

    You introduced blue eyes by way of example a characteristic of said politicians, not as the sole defining characteristic.

    The other factors have no bearing on the colour of the politicians eyes. They do have a bearing on which of the candidates become politicians.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    Sorry, bhudson, I assumed you had been following my conversation with some others before you joined in.

    What I have been saying is:

    1. In a fair society, one’s success is not affected by certain morally arbitrary characteristics.
    2. Which is to say, in a fair society, it is as difficult as possible to predict at birth a child’s success by simply being aware of its circumstances at that point – hair colour, parents’ income, eye colour, etc.
    3. One’s sex is one of those characteristics.
    4. Political power is considered a kind of success or privilege that should not be affected by those morally arbitrary characteristics.
    5. This is borne out by proponents of “equality of opportunity” in that they don’t think women should be procedurally barred from political positions.
    6. So, in a fair society, one’s sex would have no bearing on the likelihood of one aspiring to positions of political power or of attaining positions of political power. (Other factors, like interest in politics, popularity of policies, experience, etc., would have a bearing on an individual’s chances, of course, but one’s sex would not.)
    7. So, in a fair society, given that sex is utterly irrelevant to the question of political aspiration and success, the proportion of men and women in positions of political power would be reflective of the proportion of men and women in the broader population.
    8. So, any society in which those proportions differ significantly between the segment of politicians and broader population is falling short of this ideal of fairness, and there is good reason to investigate that and remedy it if possible.

    What I have been told by the majority of commenters here who have something to say about it is that one’s sex is not as irrelevant as one’s eye colour, and that because New Zealand has no procedural barriers to women becoming MPs, the fact that the proportions of sex do not reflect the general population is evidence that women innately have less desire to enter politics or innately are inferior at succeeding in politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Left Right and Centre (2,986 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull 9:19 pm

    7. So, in a fair society, given that sex is utterly irrelevant to the question of political aspiration and success, the proportion of men and women in positions of political power would be reflective of the proportion of men and women in the broader population.

    I’m thinking hard to see how NZ isn’t a ‘fair society’. Men and women have equal opportunity to do whatever they want in this country. There’s no legal barrier to either gender doing whatever they want to do.

    Why are there more male MPs than women MPs? You could ask the same question of anything in life where there is a gender skew. Why are there more men in full-time work than women? Why do women perform the majority of childcare duties? Why do more women than men stay at home to look after the kids?

    Gender preferences come from gender identity, a mix of nature/ nurture. Read psychology if you haven’t already. The skewed patterns continue in the face of the post-feminist boom.

    1) Part of it is that those that are at the ‘age of power’ grew up in the age of sexism. Girls weren’t encouraged to live a life that might lead to politics in the 40s/ 50s. That will if anything change… on its own without need for any ‘help’… by virtue of men and women being on more of an equal footing for those born in the 70s onward.

    2) It looks very much like men and women can be clustered into groups who are attracted to different interests with highly suspicious correlation to their gender. You can generalise…. to a point. You can’t make an assumption about one individual…. but across a population… *now* you can start making some inferences about gender specific choices, behaviours, attitudes and preferences.

    Men and women have different brains. In life… I see more similarities between women and other women, men and other men than I do between men and women.

    So yes, it might just be that men are more interested in becoming politicians than women. They’re more interested in being mechanics or electricians. Or truck drivers. Or roadworkers.

    There’s a gender imbalance in most types of occupation. So why would politicians be any different? NZ benefits from those who are the ‘best’ to be in that position. You don’t pick the All Blacks by saying… hey, we’ve got to have eight white guys, three Maori, two PIs and the rest ‘other’. You pick the best players available in each position. Anything else is arbitrary.

    And gender quotas is arbitrary. It looks like some folks simply can’t stand the fact that yes some areas of life are male-dominated. And they can’t accept the reasons why. The experiment will be more interesting given 10-20 years when the ‘girls can do anything’ generation rise to the ‘age of power’. And then you might see women who are the best, man or woman, and make it based on being both suitable and outstanding candidates.

    It’s whether you accept as a fact that men and women are fundamentally driven and motivated in different ways and that’s going to result in more men leading lives that can lead to politics, and more men that have a desire to enter politics. If you have more men putting their hand up, then more of them are likely to become politicians.

    Let’s take gender out of the equation. If I had 10 000 people from the North Island audition for my pop group, and only 100 from the South Island…. and I pick based purely on who I think are the best singers and musicians and most appealing etc, in all likelihood… most of them are going to come from the North Island. A simple numbers game. It’s the same with politics. More brilliant men than brilliant women applying? More men picked.

    There’s plenty of toher studies that say all of the things that would be your worst nightmare… men make better leaders, people listen to men more than woen, true of men *and* women… more authoritative… more desicive, more confident. Dominant, not submissive. not easily pushed around. If there’s any truth to all of that carry on, is that social conditioning and environment? If yes… then.. you’ve got to tell parents and everyone else that children come into contact with that they’ve got to treat all children and all people… in what way? In some ‘gender neutral’ way? In a ‘masculine way’? Try to get young girls to ‘think like boys’? I think you could deliberately try to bring up a girl ‘like a boy’… I don’t think that’s going to ‘work’. Because it’s a combination of environment and internal wiring. It’s like… you’re born a boy. You’ve got the ingredients for becoming a boy. The external environment ‘bakes’ the ingredients into a bloke. IF you’ve got girl ingredients… you can’t bake them all into blokes no matter what you try.

    I would say now that for an individual at birth… impossible to predict exactly what they will do for a job. You start factoring in parents.. if they’ve got two, or one… parents intelligence, attitudes etc… well… still hard to know or predict. So.. I think that criterion of yours has been met already. I don’t know why that matters anyway. Gender choices are partly biological. You could try to force girls/ women to do blokey things… if it’s not a part of who they are, it’s not going to work. How does a five year old boy know that he doesn’t want to go to ballet lessons because it’s ‘for girls’. Who told him that? He must have got the idea from somewhere. Could you socially condition all boys to fall in love with ballet? Could ya? I don’t know about that. They just seem to know magically somehow that they don’t want to do it. It’s a strong thing the old gender identity. But the differences are there, they lead to preferences, that’s how it is, and to try and smooth it out for no good reason arbitrarily… why? It’s like saying it’s unfair to be born male or female. Well… tough tits… you get what you get. It didn’t stop Helen Clark or a lot of other women. I see women in the trades… painters, electricians and plumbers now…. so… they probably don’t feel that anything is unfair.

    why should politics be special as a measure of a gender skewed area of life? More women play netball… more men play everything else… and? Is that a ‘problem’? More men enjoy playing with themselves. And? Men are more sexual. And why’s that? Do you want ot ‘fix’ that too? Why? What’s the cause of that? Social conditioning? Subtle messages that men should want to fuck and masturbate more? Get real.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote