4 ms·
Implicit in your world-view is that its the women who voted for the women.
by throwaway210222 5y ago
Implicit in your world-view is that its the women who voted for the women.
- lhorie 5y agoNah, you're projecting a black-and-white world view. Statistically speaking, some men would vote for men, some would vote for women, some women would vote for men and some would vote for women, and overall it would average out to around half and half representation. To be clear, it's not bad for an all-men or all-women parliament to exist in a high functioning democracy. It's statistically possible, just highly unlikely. If we look at a large timescale and there's a lopsided distribution the majority of time, or highly lopsided spikes for short periods of time, that sugggests that there are confounding factors that don't align with democratic idealism.
- throwaway210222 5y agoSurely - if this is your goal - then its better to focus on encouraging a 50:50 representative choice of candidates and humbly accept whoever the men and women then chose to represent them? You may just get a large group of competent women who are very popular to all. I can't see why it would be better for as you say - democratic idealism - to then decry that some incompetent men candidates didn't get the gig.
- lhorie 5y agoSure, in theory that could happen, but then you'd be able to explain the lopsidedness somehow. For, e.g. professions like nursing, the lopsidedness can be satisfactorily explained by gender preferences wrt roles related to human care. The elephant in the room with regards to leadership is all the stuff related to perception of competence in patriarchal societies, boys clubs (recall that in many places, wealth is somewhat of a prerequisite for campaigning successfully), etc.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]