Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

One of Labour's top two posts should always be held by a woman Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    It's a generalisation, it doesn't necessarily apply to every individual.
    You have just unwittingly found the flaw in your own argument.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    In some ways I agree with her. There should be more women in the top positions of government because there needs to be a fairer representation of the population. That being said jobs should always be won on merit alone. Whether you are male or female is not important simply that you are the best for the job. The main problem with politics is the lack of women trying to enter it the same way that primary school teaching needs more male teachers. There should be drives to encourage application from the under represented groups but after that it should come down to individual merit.

    The comments in the article should be taken in context. Gordon Brown has of late been critised for an overly masculine approach, some female MPs have felt sidelined and are angry at Gordon Brown ignoring them and being an overall prat. The man is a hypocrite for one thing. When a male member of the government was caught out with the expenses there was no question of him resigning, but when a woman was caught out she was supposed to consider her position very carefully. Not saying he's sexist though. The women in the cabinite were some of the Blare babes and the men tend to be the only friends he has left. In trying to get rid of people he considers his political enemies he's alienated the female members of his government leading them to cry wolf as it were.

    Also apparantly Lord Madelson and Harman have been argueing over the leadership whilst GB is on holiday. Harman is merely trying to bolster her own position by using the issue of sexism brought up be her fellow MPs. It is however a stupid move, but no more so than a lot of others as of late.

    All this is what I have gleemed from various news broadcasts. I may be wrong but that's how I see it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    You have just unwittingly found the flaw in your own argument.
    That is not a flaw. :rolleyes:

    Gender stereotypes are mostly true.
    Offline

    2
    I just looked up her majority in 2005, and it's huge. Not sure the lib dems will be able to get her out - unless she's leaving because of expenses anyway?

    Harriet Harman - Labour - 18,933
    Richard Porter - Liberal Democrat - 5,450
    Jessica Lee - Conservative - 2,841
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    That is not a flaw. :rolleyes:

    Gender stereotypes are mostly true.
    It is a flaw; it undermines your argument that women cannot be strong political leaders.
    In what way are gender stereotypes accurate? :shifty:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    I just looked up her majority in 2005, and it's huge. Not sure the lib dems will be able to get her out - unless she's leaving because of expenses anyway?

    Harriet Harman - Labour - 18,933
    Richard Porter - Liberal Democrat - 5,450
    Jessica Lee - Conservative - 2,841
    That's quite a majority. :woo:
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    That's quite a majority. :woo:
    It's a poor area of London ...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    It's a poor area of London ...
    What does that signify?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    It is a flaw; it undermines your argument that women cannot be strong political leaders.
    In what way are gender stereotypes accurate? :shifty:
    I never said absolutely no women could. I just said that men are usually better placed to do so.

    Because men and women are clearly different and there's proven psychological differences between the sexes.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    What does that signify?
    That poor people vote for labour and not the tories? :p:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    That poor people vote for labour and not the tories? :p:
    That's not strictly true. The Tories have always benefited from a sizeable share of the working class vote.
    In very poor areas, you might expect a stronger BNP presence, as opposed to Labour.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    I never said absolutely no women could. I just said that men are usually better placed to do so.

    Because men and women are clearly different and there's proven psychological differences between the sexes.
    Yes they are better placed. Attending an elite all-boys school such as Eton for example, certainly places one in a better postion to foster contacts and wield political power. This does not mean they are innately better.

    And these are?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The thing is having a woman in power doesn't mean they're going to necessarily reflect the interests of all women :dontknow: Whose opinions on policies directly affecting women vary anyway.

    I do think one or two more competent women could sway other females to lead a career in politics, which is probably beneficial, but it seems very oversimplified to think that equal representation will mean policies will cover the interests of men and women.

    People are more stratified and separated by class rather than gender in this country. Don't get me wrong I'm sure there are plenty of misogynists in parliament, it's an old boys game afterall, but forcing equality doesn't seem to logically achieve anything. Surely the female candidate's political persuasion and skill trumps any vague 'womanly opinion' they could have - so why is their gender even a concern?
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    That's not strictly true. The Tories have always benefited from a sizeable share of the working class vote.
    In very poor areas, you might expect a stronger BNP presence, as opposed to Labour.
    That's because the BNP are similar to old labour ... with added racism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Yes they are better placed. Attending an elite all-boys school such as Eton for example, certainly places one in a better postion to foster contacts and wield political power. This does not mean they are innately better.
    I never said that men are innately better. They are better at some things just as women are.

    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    And these are?
    Well, you could look for example at how physical appearance is more important to men sexually than it is to women.

    (Original post by cats_have_teats)
    The thing is having a woman in power doesn't mean they're going to necessarily reflect the interests of all women :dontknow: Whose opinions on policies directly affecting women vary anyway.

    I do think one or two more competent women could sway other females to lead a career in politics, which is probably beneficial, but it seems very oversimplified to think that equal representation will mean policies will cover the interests of men and women.

    People are more stratified and separated by class rather than gender in this country. Don't get me wrong I'm sure there are plenty of misogynists in parliament, it's an old boys game afterall, but forcing equality doesn't seem to logically achieve anything. Surely the female candidate's political persuasion and skill trumps any vague 'womanly opinion' they could have - so why is their gender even a concern?
    I agree. Look at the article below to see examples of female polticians who are anti-women women.

    Anti-Woman Women
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    That's because the BNP are similar to old labour ... with added racism.
    I think racism with a dash of old Labour would be a more accurate description. Nevertheless, New Labour still better represent the working class than the Tories do ...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    I never said that men are innately better. They are better at some things just as women are.

    Well, you could look for example at how physical appearance is more important to men sexually than it is to women.
    What things are men better at?

    That's just a generalisation that is not rooted in fact, and even if it was it's a largely irrelevant issue anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    What things are men better at?
    They are physically stronger, braver, funnier and better leaders.

    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    That's just a generalisation that is not rooted in fact, and even if it was it's a largely irrelevant issue anyway.
    It is rooted in fact, many studies have shown it to be true.

    And the issue of human courting is not "irrelevant". It also isn't the only physicological difference.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)

    It is rooted in fact, many studies have shown it to be true.


    Many studies have shown it not to be true.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am not one to start saying that men < women or women < men - I simply don't believe that.
    Just to make that clear.

    In fact, I think that the proposal that one of the two "top jobs" (does anyone know what the top jobs are btw - I would have thought PM and chancellor, but are we talking PM and deputy here?) is itself discriminatory.
    I mean, if the two people best-placed to run the country were women, would they be allowed to do so? That isn't clear.
    But if the two people best-placed to run the country were men, it certainly wouldn't be allowed, if this idea is carried through.
    How can they then say to one of the two men, sorry you can't have the job because you're not a woman.
    Discrimination!

    It was the same with our "school council" (I know it's petty!)
    If there were two great candidates who happened to be female, one of them would necessarily have to be voted out.
    Same for if the two candidates happened to be male.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.