women in politics (2 Viewers)

[Sophie25_08]

Why has Australia not had a female prime minister where as Israel, India, Sri Lanka and more have. Is there a gender bias in Australian politics and in Australia society???? or have their just not been good female candidates?

 

[foolish bowie]

I think that we are the closest we have ever been to getting a female prime minister, with Julia Gillard being deputy PM. I do think that gender bias remains in Australia in some areas, particularly politics. Many conservative people in Australia think of it as a 'man's game'. Although I agree that it is strange that countrys such as Sri Lanka, Israel etc. have all had female prime ministers... a place where Australia is lacking...

 

[Sprangler]

Don't forget Margaret Thatcher guyz.

 

[Lentern]

Why has Australia not had a female prime minister where as Israel, India, Sri Lanka and more have. Is there a gender bias in Australian politics and in Australia society???? or have their just not been good female candidates?

A little bit of this and a little bit of that really. In contemporary Australia whilst I think men have a head start its about a small a headstart as anywhere in the world. Anna Bligh is premier of QLD, Carmel Tebbutt is deputy and prefered premier of NSW, Gillard is deputy pm, Bishop is depty LOP and will probably be LOP before the next change of government, Kerry Chikarovski lead the NSW liberals, Carmen Lawrence was the WA premier, Clover Moore and Lucy Turnbull have both been mayors of Sydney etc. The rise of figures like Indira Ghandi and Golda Meir was something extraordinary and surprising, it did not occur through any growing trned whereas Australia's first female prime minister almost certainly will.

With that being said we may have been a bit late to get liberated even if we have since taken huge strides. Thatcher, Meir, Ghandi and Bandaranaike is rose to political prominence in eras where there was no prominent women in Australian politics. Before Dr Lawrence the most prominent woman in Australia was probably Janine Haines or Margaret Whitlam unless anyone has a better name to put forward.

 

[Silver Persian]

Who are you to decide what an 'optimal' level of equality is? Do you have perfect knowledge? If not i suggest you not make arbitrary assumption of what percentage of women politicians defines a 'fair' system.

As it stands there is no explicit institutional barriers to females becoming politicians and by extension leaders. They are popularly elected representatives.

What would you say response to this:
Anne Phillips, ‘Defending Equality of Outcome’, The Journal of Political Philosophy 12, no. 1 (2004), p. 2.

 

[Iron]

deliber8ly barren

 

[Fish Tank]

Personally, I don't think there hasn't been a truly inspirational female leader in Australian politics. Nothing is really convincing me to jump onto the 'Julia Gillard bandwagon', or start supporting the 'Julie Bishop movement'.

There'd be people out there who would think the idea of a woman as PM as ludicrous only because they're female. You can't avoid that. But there are people who look at what the politician stands for or represents or wants to do with the country. Those people hold the real balance of power.

If I find a motivational politician, then I support them. And I support a female politician... PAULINE HANSON!

 

[Silver Persian]

She does recognise that legitimate inequalities can arise as a consequence of the different choices that particular cultural groups may make. But her point is to ask where these choices come from. If less women are choosing to participate in politics, for instance, we have to ask why; because these choices are not being made in a cultural vaccuum, but are rather structured by the particular opporunities and meanings that a person encounters.

 

[Silver Persian]

Where do our choices come from?

 

[Silver Persian]

Who cares? I'm not responsible for what you choose.

I'll answer the question for you - our choices emerge from the preferences we develop as a consequence of the particular society that we encounter. If particular social groups are encouraged to develop a specific set of values or ideals, to what extent can we say that they have"freely chosen" to behave in a certain way?

 

[Silver Persian]

And for that matter, social context and biological determinism render me an unthinking entity, free of any responsibility for my actions.

It is fun and easy to attack strawmen, isn't it?

 

[Silver Persian]

Silver Persian is incapable of love. All he does is spout left wing clap trap.

 

[Lentern]

Silver Persian is incapable of love. All he does is spout left wing clap trap.

Socially left you capitalist pig.

 

[loquasagacious]

I'll answer the question for you - our choices emerge from the preferences we develop as a consequence of the particular society that we encounter. If particular social groups are encouraged to develop a specific set of values or ideals, to what extent can we say that they have"freely chosen" to behave in a certain way?

I think Shane is making a good point here. It is in my opinion quite straight forward and uncontroversial to guarantee equality of choice/opportunity. However getting into the choices being made is extremely problematic.

I don't think that you can avoid the argument that the Phillips perspective is an ivory tower one which essentially holds that people are making the wrong choice and that they should be somehow socially engineered into making the right one.

While choices may indeed be informed by a social construct of some sort I find it absurd to think that it is possible or desirable for someone to judge that choice and propose it be engineered to reach a different outcome. Central planning doesn't work for the economy why would it work for society??

Which of course is not to say that women should not be encouraged to enter politics/etc but rather that this encouragement should not be regulation and should not be from the government. If Anne Phillips wants to stand on a soapbox and implore women to enter politics then kudos to her, if she wants the Government to mandate quotas and engage in marketing campaigns then I reject that completely.

(sorry to interrupt the flirting)

 

[Silver Persian]

From memory, Phillips isn't exclusively talking about the realm of legislation - her emphasis is primarily on culture and the realms of meaning and value. Which, admittedly, are qutie difficult things to go about legislating/consciously changing.

While choices may indeed be informed by a social construct of some sort I find it absurd to think that it is possible or desirable for someone to judge that choice and propose it be engineered to reach a different outcome. Central planning doesn't work for the economy why would it work for society??

Yes this is interesting. Because there does seem something quite Brave New Worldesque about conscious attempts to manipulate people's preference structures. But, on the other hand, our preference structures are always generated within social contexts that will encourage particular normative values whlle discouraging others...so...I don't know. Is the random influence that history has on our behaviour any less coercive than more conscious attempts to generate particular social outcomes through the alteration of patterns of meaning etc.?


*wanders off*

 

[Silver Persian]

You should know that I find impoliteness thoroughly unattractive.

 

[loquasagacious]

The wittiness is debateable, ad hominem arguments are poor form and in the spirit of Voltaire everyone is worth defending.

Yes this is interesting. Because there does seem something quite Brave New Worldesque about conscious attempts to manipulate people's preference structures. But, on the other hand, our preference structures are always generated within social contexts that will encourage particular normative values whlle discouraging others...so...I don't know. Is the random influence that history has on our behaviour any less coercive than more conscious attempts to generate particular social outcomes through the alteration of patterns of meaning etc.?

I don't think that the influence of random history can be said to be coercive because it is not a deliberate action with a planned outcome and more importantly it is the product of all it's participants. History is the actions and experiences of society, it is nothing less than the sum of all societies experience and actions. Society shifts naturally when society wants to shift. Social progress is a natural, organic process.

Social engineering is coercive because it is the imposition of deliberate action by a minority seeking to change the majority. I think you correctly identify it as Brave New World-esque.

 

[spiny norman]

A little bit of this and a little bit of that really. In contemporary Australia whilst I think men have a head start its about a small a headstart as anywhere in the world. Anna Bligh is premier of QLD, Carmel Tebbutt is deputy and prefered premier of NSW, Gillard is deputy pm, Bishop is depty LOP and will probably be LOP before the next change of government, Kerry Chikarovski lead the NSW liberals, Carmen Lawrence was the WA premier, Clover Moore and Lucy Turnbull have both been mayors of Sydney etc..

...Let's not get carried away.