Harriet Harman's 'Feminist' Comments

[Kirkatronics]

Because over half the population are female (and thus should be represented in government) and I find it highly unlikely that there would ever be a situation where there are 10 perfectly capable male deputy prime ministers and all the female candidates would make cheese look intelligent because they get to that potential position for a reason.

 

Besides, its not like we've never elected an incapable politician before (or they've found themselves in a position of power by default).

 

 

 

Would have been called to resign, but do you honestly think he would have been made to resign? Its a fucking sausage club, he would have gotten away with it.

The odds are that it is mostly men who train for these posts, so the odds are more in the mens favor.

[Ashley]

The odds are that it is mostly men who train for these posts, so the odds are more in the mens favor.

 

Yes but the odds are favoured for that because it is seen as a boy's club. The underlying issue in Harman's rather poorly worded comments are things need to change. I would agree, it is more likely that a man would consider a career in politics but this absolutely should not be the case. Changes need to be made and if it is shown that women, qualified women, can gain a seat in power then perhaps it would open the doors to more female MPs.

 

I wonder if Thatcher had an impact upon female MPs, whether more came about in the 80's.

[danny]

Because over half the population are female (and thus should be represented in government) and I find it highly unlikely that there would ever be a situation where there are 10 perfectly capable male deputy prime ministers and all the female candidates would make cheese look intelligent because they get to that potential position for a reason.

 

Besides, its not like we've never elected an incapable politician before (or they've found themselves in a position of power by default).

 

 

 

Would have been called to resign, but do you honestly think he would have been made to resign? Its a fucking sausage club, he would have gotten away with it.

 

yes over half the population are female. But that dosent mean that one of the two top jobs should always be a woman. Thats just equality for the sake of equality. Im not saying that there would be 10 men more qualified (i did also say it could be 10 women) but there could be and i dont think its wise to make it a policy that could lead to this. All im saying is best person for the job. Making a rule that says this job must go to this type of person is about the most un equal thing that could be done.

I dont think women should be represented in govenment equaly at all. As far as im concerned the british public is mad eup of 100% people. And the house of commons is made up of 100% people. There should be no limits to who can and cannot be elected or hold jobs in govenment.

[Emasher]

The government is supposed to represent the people, yes, but there's no reason a man can't represent a woman. MPs shouldn't be an equal representation of all people in that sense, they should be the people who know the needs of the people in their riding the best. The people who know the most about the people. If its a man, or a woman, it shouldn't matter.

[Ashley]

Do you honestly believe they would set up a policy that states "A woman must be in one of the top positions, even if the woman has the IQ of a squirrel." There would be contingency plans in the sake of a gender drought, even if someone is temporary appointed. Arguing a point on something that is blatantly not going to happen is absurd.

 

What about a shake up in the structure, why not two deputy prime ministers? Why not a group of representatives for each large subsection of the British population; gender, race and possibly religion but that's a different issue unto itself. Although it would probably raise taxes so nobody is going to support that if we're honest. But a fair representation needs to be had.

 

Can anyone look at this and believe it to be fair? Without some bullshit "well there probably ain't no good womens for it" retort. Start at the base, start with education. It has worked for other areas (such as maths and what not), by showing girls that they can become MPs, firefighters, UFC champion or whatever the hell they aspire to be.

 

The government is supposed to represent the people, yes, but there's no reason a man can't represent a woman. MPs shouldn't be an equal representation of all people in that sense, they should be the people who know the needs of the people in their riding the best. The people who know the most about the people. If its a man, or a woman, it shouldn't matter.

 

Okay so maybe not a sake of representation of each gender, but the old 'two heads are better than one' saying. There are a variety of ways in which issues can be addressed and perhaps a female and male perspective (and yes, they will be relatively minor in terms of all the different potential perspectives) would be beneficial.

 

Or if we're going back to those earlier stereotypes on gender roles; who is it in a typical household that takes care of the finances? Not necessarily earns the money, but knows where it's coming and going?

Edited August 10, 2009 by Ashley
Automerged Doublepost

[Daft]

I don't like her face. Simple as.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Do you honestly believe they would set up a policy that states "A woman must be in one of the top positions, even if the woman has the IQ of a squirrel." There would be contingency plans in the sake of a gender drought, even if someone is temporary appointed. Arguing a point on something that is blatantly not going to happen is absurd.

 

What about a shake up in the structure, why not two deputy prime ministers? Why not a group of representatives for each large subsection of the British population; gender, race and possibly religion but that's a different issue unto itself. Although it would probably raise taxes so nobody is going to support that if we're honest. But a fair representation needs to be had.

 

Can anyone look at this and believe it to be fair? Without some bullshit "well there probably ain't no good womens for it" retort. Start at the base, start with education. It has worked for other areas (such as maths and what not), by showing girls that they can become MPs, firefighters, UFC champion or whatever the hell they aspire to be.

 

 

 

Okay so maybe not a sake of representation of each gender, but the old 'two heads are better than one' saying. There are a variety of ways in which issues can be addressed and perhaps a female and male perspective (and yes, they will be relatively minor in terms of all the different potential perspectives) would be beneficial.

 

Or if we're going back to those earlier stereotypes on gender roles; who is it in a typical household that takes care of the finances? Not necessarily earns the money, but knows where it's coming and going?

I like your idea about showing girls what they can be and them aspiring to become it, as you're probably right that more women in higher positions isn't a bad thing, However, I really find the idea of "equal representation" very, ironically enough, unequal. I'm not really sure if you're advocating a rule about 50/50 representation or merely see a more equal representation as something potentially positive. In any case, I still think people should only be selected based on skills and qualification - even if that means the whole staff becomes male/female.

[The fish]

I think this is a case of the combination of bad phrasing and worse manipulation by the press.

 

I believe her point is that much of the higher echelons of the political, financial and industrial worlds are seen, by their own, as "old-boys clubs". They're almost all old-school, well-connected men. It's not just women who are excluded, it's younger, more liberal men as well.

 

The problem is the famous "glass ceiling" one - women especially can't get higher up as the current bosses in many areas are old, sexist men, who tend to only promote their own kind, and as such the issue continues. With politics, at least, this can be changed, but only if people actually join parties to vote for their leaders.

[Ashley]

I find it amazing that a lot of people seem to presume that ultimately there are no qualified women out there. Yes, people should be selected on merit but by simply stating "but then it may lead to positive discrimination" suggest you believe there is an unequal balance in potentially qualified candidates.

 

Or, put more simply, have you tested everyone? :p

[The fish]

In any case, I still think people should only be selected based on skills and qualification - even if that means the whole staff becomes male/female.

 

The issue is that they're not being selected by skills and qualification only - they're also selected by how popular they are with other members (as they have votes, in politics, at least), and as a majority are arsey old men, they like other arsey old men as it's "an old-boys club".

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I find it amazing that a lot of people seem to presume that ultimately there are no qualified women out there. Yes, people should be selected on merit but by simply stating "but then it may lead to positive discrimination" suggest you believe there is an unequal balance in potentially qualified candidates.

 

Or, put more simply, have you tested everyone? :p

It may seem like we think that, but I, for one, really don't. It's just to make it simpler for the sake of understanding.

 

The issue is that they're not being selected by skills and qualification only - they're also selected by how popular they are with other members (as they have votes, in politics, at least), and as a majority are arsey old men, they like other arsey old men as it's "an old-boys club".

And that's not acceptable, of course. But I really don't think the solution is to make rules regarding gender and the like. It's hypocritical, I find.

[Gizmo]

Because over half the population are female (and thus should be represented in government) and I find it highly unlikely that there would ever be a situation where there are 10 perfectly capable male deputy prime ministers and all the female candidates would make cheese look intelligent because they get to that potential position for a reason.

 

No, you're right, that situation would be unlikely. But why should we settle for a less qualified person? Whether they are male or female is irrelevant. If a woman is more qualified, she will get it. If not, she won't. Simple. In everything I say, he and she, or him and her, or whatever, is interchangeable. So If a man is more qualified, he will get it. If not, he won't. Simple.

 

Besides, its not like we've never elected an incapable politician before (or they've found themselves in a position of power by default).

 

 

 

 

What about a shake up in the structure, why not two deputy prime ministers? Why not a group of representatives for each large subsection of the British population; gender, race and possibly religion but that's a different issue unto itself. Although it would probably raise taxes so nobody is going to support that if we're honest. But a fair representation needs to be had.

 

So I suppose every constituency should have an Male MP and a Female MP?

 

If that happens, then you could equally argue that every constituency should have a black MP and a white MP. So then you'd need a male black MP, a male white MP, a female black MP, a female white MP. What about Pakistani? Gay, Straight, Bi? Christian, Jew, Muslim? What you're suggesting is ridiculous.

 

 

Can anyone look at this and believe it to be fair? Without some bullshit "well there probably ain't no good womens for it" retort. Start at the base, start with education. It has worked for other areas (such as maths and what not), by showing girls that they can become MPs, firefighters, UFC champion or whatever the hell they aspire to be.

 

It's fair, because people voted for that make up. If more than 50% of the population is female, then they were perfectly able to get a woman elected. You can't even use the anti-FPTP argument here, because women being the largest single group are in fact in a position of power. If every woman voted for a woman, then a woman would be elected. Can't say the same for men.

 

 

Okay so maybe not a sake of representation of each gender, but the old 'two heads are better than one' saying. There are a variety of ways in which issues can be addressed and perhaps a female and male perspective (and yes, they will be relatively minor in terms of all the different potential perspectives) would be beneficial.

 

Or if we're going back to those earlier stereotypes on gender roles; who is it in a typical household that takes care of the finances? Not necessarily earns the money, but knows where it's coming and going?

 

 

Two heads are better than one? How about "too many cooks spoil the broth"? An equally valid argument. What you're suggesting has no merit unless taken to extremes, which would ultimately necessitate a country without representation in order to be perfectly fair. Do you want every person to vote on every issue? I dunno, I think they might need to build an extension to the Houses of Parliament for that.

 

I find it amazing that a lot of people seem to presume that ultimately there are no qualified women out there. Yes, people should be selected on merit but by simply stating "but then it may lead to positive discrimination" suggest you believe there is an unequal balance in potentially qualified candidates.

 

Or, put more simply, have you tested everyone? :p

 

People aren't presuming that at all. In fact, the opposite. People are saying that if there were qualified women out there, then it wouldn't be necessary. The fact that it is needed for Harriet Harmans version of "equality" inherently proves that it wouldn't work.

[danny]

 

He may be incompetant but i want him to be PM. he at least seems the most trustworthy. like he would start lieing to you but then half way through a sentance tell you the he was lieing. Boris for PM!!! lol

 

I find it amazing that a lot of people seem to presume that ultimately there are no qualified women out there. Yes, people should be selected on merit but by simply stating "but then it may lead to positive discrimination" suggest you believe there is an unequal balance in potentially qualified candidates.

 

Or, put more simply, have you tested everyone? :p

 

Im not saying that there arnt women qualified out there. Im just saying we shoudnt get on to the position where a less qualified person has to have the job just because shes a woman. in just the same way i dont want a man to get a job just because hes a man. If there were 2 really good women. But common sense would say as it stands there probably is an unequal balance as most MPs are men so therefore you would expect on averages there to be more better men. In perticular that harriet harman is the top female MP in the labour party and shes made a fair t**t out of herself of late. Dosent give me much belief in the other labour women labour MPs if shes seen as the best they have?

All though i dont know any others and thats just an asumption.

[Gizmo]

He may be incompetant but i want him to be PM. he at least seems the most trustworthy. like he would start lieing to you but then half way through a sentance tell you the he was lieing. Boris for PM!!! lol

 

Anybody who knows me knows that I'm with you 100%. Most politicians seem trustworthy, but inside are incompetant. Boris seems incompetant, but inside is trustworthy.

[Shino]

Obama is black, therefore he only represents 20% of Americans. Makes complete sense.

 

Women get the same education and can get to any job or position they want, they're completely emancipated, and the only cause of concern to them are bigot men, but hey, that happens, prejudice exists for everything. If they don't feel represented, then they should and are able to make something about it.

[Ashley]

No, you're right, that situation would be unlikely. But why should we settle for a less qualified person? Whether they are male or female is irrelevant. If a woman is more qualified, she will get it. If not, she won't. Simple. In everything I say, he and she, or him and her, or whatever, is interchangeable. So If a man is more qualified, he will get it. If not, he won't. Simple.

 

Do you honestly believe that? Granted if there's a huge difference of competeny yes the woman will, but if its enough to go "well, he'll still be good" they'll select the woman? Competency is by and large, and particularly when we're discussing a level such as this where they have proved themself to be competent enough to get to this level, a personal interpretation and those in charge of deciding are the old-men's club.

 

(more of a side point/general musing but look at the only woman to come into power. she, in many ways, acted like a 'man'.)

 

So I suppose every constituency should have an Male MP and a Female MP? If that happens, then you could equally argue that every constituency should have a black MP and a white MP. So then you'd need a male black MP, a male white MP, a female black MP, a female white MP. What about Pakistani? Gay, Straight, Bi? Christian, Jew, Muslim? What you're suggesting is ridiculous.

 

I did suggest that it should include. If you're going to mock at least read :p I also said it wouldn't happen. I know its not something that is possible, but if everyone else is about to throw out hypothetical hyperbole why not me? :p

 

It's fair, because people voted for that make up. If more than 50% of the population is female, then they were perfectly able to get a woman elected. You can't even use the anti-FPTP argument here, because women being the largest single group are in fact in a position of power. If every woman voted for a woman, then a woman would be elected. Can't say the same for men.

 

Which is why I (and others) have suggested we go back to schooling. Politics is not something that is particularly seen as a 'female-friendly' subject (and granted something as precise as politics which isn't specifically taught until at best GCSE level is even worse as a large part of the socialisation process has already happened) and often not a career that is 'pushed' towards girls the same way teaching is (for example).

 

Yes, maybe if there was an equal share of female MPs they would get voted more but ask yourself why there isn't? In your last local elections how many were male and how many were female? And why do you think this is? It's not that they're outright shown the door when they show an interest, but they're never directed toward the door in the first place. (lame imagery but its late)

 

Two heads are better than one? How about "too many cooks spoil the broth"? An equally valid argument. What you're suggesting has no merit unless taken to extremes, which would ultimately necessitate a country without representation in order to be perfectly fair. Do you want every person to vote on every issue? I dunno, I think they might need to build an extension to the Houses of Parliament for that.

 

People aren't presuming that at all. In fact, the opposite. People are saying that if there were qualified women out there, then it wouldn't be necessary. The fact that it is needed for Harriet Harmans version of "equality" inherently proves that it wouldn't work.

 

I'm sorry hasn't this thread been meritless extremes since its conception? Isn't what Harman said a meritless extreme? *

 

Im not saying that there arnt women qualified out there. Im just saying we shoudnt get on to the position where a less qualified person has to have the job just because shes a woman. in just the same way i dont want a man to get a job just because hes a man. If there were 2 really good women. But common sense would say as it stands there probably is an unequal balance as most MPs are men so therefore you would expect on averages there to be more better men. In perticular that harriet harman is the top female MP in the labour party and shes made a fair t**t out of herself of late. Dosent give me much belief in the other labour women labour MPs if shes seen as the best they have?

All though i dont know any others and thats just an asumption.

 

Perhaps its my personal interpretation but to me contemplating this half-empty situation before it even begins suggests an underlying belief. But ultimately a lot of this is personal interpretation.

 

Are politicans not constantly making a tit of themselves, regardless of gender? Bush may be an extreme example but only one needs to look a few months back to see that politicians aren't perfect people, on many accounts. Personally I have no faith in politicians as a general rule, and it seems that is the general consensus coming through from the Boris comments.

 

Sometimes history needs an extreme, and probably lambasted, voice to start the wheels in motion. I'm not saying Harriet Harman is a modern day Rosa Parks or something but she has done something very useful, she has people talking and thinking about the state of gender equality in contemporary British politics and whether things need to be shaken up at some level. The whole one man one woman thing may be a bit silly (and its just dawned on me, rather Noahesque) but can everyone who has criticised her, everyone who has critiqued my points, honestly say that they feel that there is not some equality within British politics in regards to gender? Even down to something like pay? (and yes, women do still get paid less than men in many places)

 

* (and the reason I starred this is because I feel it makes a good end point even if it is following on from something earlier) I have at no point tried to express my opinion, despite how it may seem. Instead I've simply tried to add a contrasting one to get people thinking.

[Sheikah]

Yes, maybe if there was an equal share of female MPs they would get voted more but ask yourself why there isn't? In your last local elections how many were male and how many were female? And why do you think this is? It's not that they're outright shown the door when they show an interest, but they're never directed toward the door in the first place. (lame imagery but its late)

 

 

 

I honestly don't think this is anyone's fault. I think that men and women are more inclined to pursue different careers, just because of the differences in how and men naturally think and perceive the world. On the same note, there's far fewer male nurses, and probably fewer male hairdressers. Since there's more male politicians, there's an increased likeliness of the best candidate out of a pool of applicants being male (simply due to being more of them). To artificially slap people in places to tick boxes is just silliness.

 

To be honest, we shouldn't care what the gender of the people in power is. The people in power are there to run the country...their status, including their gender, sexuality and religion should not matter in the slightest. If they do a good job, and have worked hard to acquire their job, irrelevant factors should have no importance.

[Iun]

Alright Ash, we get it: You regret not being a woman. Next time, ok?

 

The heart of this debate is not whether women are equally valuable members of society, but whther or not a man or a woman should hold a top position out of a notion of equality. Which is something I totally disagree with. If you can prove your worth, then do so, if not, then you're not equal.

 

What we need to remember though is that the world needs people to lay the foundations as well as those who design them, every position in the world has it's value.

[Ashley]

Alright Ash, we get it: You regret not being a woman. Next time, ok?

 

Oh hellllls no. I'm happy being male thanks :p Being a woman is too much of a science.

[ipaul]

She has good intentions but she has the most ridiculous way of articulating herself. As far as I knew all she wanted was the pay gap eliminated and for there to be more women in politics. Shouldn't be too much of a demand in reality but everyone kicks up such a big goddam fuss over a few poorly worded comments. Shame really, someone from New Labour shows any ounce of wanting to make things better and gets shot down for it.

[Josh64]

If someone's good for a job then hire them, who cares if they are black, white, male or female.

It's that simple.

[Goafer]

All job interviews should be done anonymously through letters or email or something. That way the employer can't discriminate against gender/race etc because they won't know. Unless you mention something like "the other day, when I was cleaning my vagina" or something, but then you probably wouldn't get the job anyway.

 

 

Men and women have evolved differently. Men have evolved as the hunter/gatherer/protector and women have evolved as carers. For some bizzarre reason, people seem to think that men are more successful in general because they get the higher up jobs in politics etc. I don't see it that way, I see it as men doing what they naturally do best and women doing what they naturally do best. The only thing is that the things women do best aren't considered "successful" by the publics standards.

 

I'm all for equal opportunities for everyone, but trying to shoehorn people into certain jobs is just pointless. I think what really needs to change is peoples opinion on what is successful or not.

 

Hopefully all that makes sense. It was more a general view on things rather than a specific view on this topic.

[nightwolf]

I'm all for having more black people, female people, asian people, handicapped people etc. in the workplace - but let's make sure they are they because they can do their job, not simply because they have no penis.

 

This.

 

I believe in equality, I believe a woman should be paid as much as a man, a man should be able to do a womans job and vice versa. But if a woman went into a job with no clue how to do it then thats ridiculous, it would only make the world a worse place.

 

From what I see and know, politics is dominated by males, whether this is by history or because women purely don't want to be in politics, who knows (I'm sure one of you intelligent lot can tell me!) but it would be nice to see more women in there, I don't mean brainless women, I mean women who take an active interest/desire and know what they are talking about.

 

Really to me however, she seemed to be just using her power to shout at feminist crap. But alas..

[Fierce_LiNk]

All job interviews should be done anonymously through letters or email or something. That way the employer can't discriminate against gender/race etc because they won't know. Unless you mention something like "the other day, when I was cleaning my vagina" or something, but then you probably wouldn't get the job anyway.

 

But the way somebody comes across in a letter isn't the same as how they would come across in a face to face interview. With a letter, you can spend days or maybe even weeks constructing it. With an interview, you're in there for an hour or so, and the person will see and hear you. The pressure is different. And, there are some areas or questions that will be explored through interviews that just wouldn't get done on an Application form for example.

 

But, I do like your idea about doing it anonymously, but I think it would only work for the application process. It actually reminds me of my current job situation. I've been applying for Schools in South Wales, and each application form asks you to complete this equal opportunity form. Now, I absolutely loathe filling out these forms, because it is a bit of a mindfuck for me. It starts off asking if you're British, Welsh, English, Scottish or Irish. Well...do I tick British or Welsh? That part is relatively simple compared to the next part. Am I White, White Mixed, Asian, Pakistani? It's impossible to just tick the one box because I don't even think it gives any kind of reflection of what I'm like or who I am. I even dread putting my name down on the application form sometimes because I think to myself "oh, they're gonna see the name, not know how to pronounce it, and throw my form in the bin."

 

I don't consider my Religion or Ethnicity to be too much of a talking point for me. I try to put myself across as a decent person or one who wants to make a positive contribution to the world. But, as soon as I see these forms or as soon as it comes to these applications, I do feel as if this part of me is being displayed and this part is being judged. I don't particularly want to get into a school because I'm Asian. I want to get in because I'm a good teacher.

[ipaul]

Just read through the whole thing and I'm with Ashley on this one.

 

Btw Gizmo do you actually like Boris Johnson or think he is any good? I can never tell o_O