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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    Do you think helping poor children get into higher education is discrimination? This is an attempt to give poor people a chance to higher education and better options, after a past when universities were associated with rich people - as political jobs were associated with men.
    Helping poor children get into higher education by their own merit is not discrimination, and I completely agree with this. But so called 'affirmative action' programs which give preference to a poorer child IS discrimination and I am strongly opposed to it.

    Ever heard the saying 'two wrongs don't make a right'? You can't fix discrimination with more discrimination, and that is what 'affirmative action' attempts to do, and that is why it is inherently flawed.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    You're taking this the wrong way.

    Do you think helping poor children get into higher education is discrimination? This is an attempt to give poor people a chance to higher education and better options, after a past when universities were associated with rich people - as political jobs were associated with men.
    Absolutely, of course it is. They should be able to get in on their own merits, and there is no bias against them, which is as it should be.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    I like to believe otherwise. If these deep set attitudes could not be chandes, then we'd still be living in the mid-ages. Attitudes can greatly be changed by the government and media, sometimes more than one's family.
    They can influenced, but not controlled. It takes time and education for a start. Enforcing laws does not fundamentally change opinion. It might make people resent things more than ever (as it's becoming apparent on here. like you said these laws were merely designed to enforce equality, and how much resistance have they been met by because of that?)
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    You're taking this the wrong way.

    Do you think helping poor children get into higher education is discrimination? This is an attempt to give poor people a chance to higher education and better options, after a past when universities were associated with rich people - as political jobs were associated with men.
    Well I'm all for encouraging women to go into politics by their own merits. Just like I'm all for encouraging poor children to think about higher education, telling them about the benefits etc. But I completely disagree with positive discrimination in favour of such people; they should have to succeed on their own merits.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darkness and Mist)
    Thats the biggest load of crap I have ever heard in my life.

    Just because there is a 50:50 ratio of men to women does not mean government has to be equally split, somebody doesnt have to be the same as you to be able to do their job and represent you. If you notice women are allowed to vote, do you know what that means? it means that women have voted men into power, not because they feel that women cant do the job, but because they think that those people are the best for the job.

    Men and women are not the same, we are equal but we are different, you cant just blame everything on discrimination. There are reasons for everything and not all of them are ridiculous or aimed at opressing people, your assumption is that because things you value more are maybe dominated by men that there must be some kind of discrimination, this simply isnt the case.

    Affirmative action is discrimination, dont fight fire with fire. also I would like to know, what discrimination? women are treated better in this country than pretty much anywhere else in the world. You can bang on about unequal pay etc but in reality there is very little to actually base these claims of mass inequality on.
    Of course you can't fight fire with fire, and that's not what I'm advocating. As I replied to someone earlier, the kind of action suggested for political seats to make them more open and appealing to women is similar to what has been done with poor pupils who have been given a nudge, or help, or whatever you'd call it, to get into higher education, a privilege historically asscociated with rich people. Just because poor people can get into higher education doesn't mean they will. People need to be shown through politics and the media that the world has indeed changed and that cynism is inappropriate. Surely you don't consider the above example with poor children discrimination against the rich kids. It's simply a social reform aimed at encouraging people from unlikely backgrounds to consider what they couldn't before - education for the poor, as politics for women - it doesn't mean rich kids are smarter, it doesn't mean men are better at politics. It's just a consequence of the past that still dominates today and needs to be remediated.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aeonflux)
    Helping poor children get into higher education by their own merit is not discrimination, and I completely agree with this. But so called 'affirmative action' programs which give preference to a poorer child IS discrimination and I am strongly opposed to it.

    Ever heard the saying 'two wrongs don't make a right'? You can't fix discrimination with more discrimination, and that is what 'affirmative action' attempts to do, and that is why it is inherently flawed.
    Affirmative action plans aim to work for the sake of a "greater good" and I think that's incorrect.

    However, things can be changed without discrimination. For example, poor kids not getting into higher education is most often due to the culture that insinuates higher education is for rich people and creeps in the children's minds in circumstances which clearly contradict the myths.

    For example, you're a poor kid - you know that the government will give you loans and stuff like that to support your education, you know you're smart enough to do it, but you're put off my the continuous association of higher education with rich people and your attitude towards it is that "It's not for me", despite the fact that the government is trying to help and change the mindset of society.

    Affirmative action might not be the most sensible thing to do, but these people need to be somehow introduced to a new approach to higher education and social class.

    Same for politics. Women can very well become great politicians, but for some reason they don't. It's because the political world still is male-dominated and male-orientated and women just don't seem to "fit it" properly. People still have biased attitudes towards women already in politics, similarly to those of poor kids in education. They think there must be something wrong with them. Most of the time, it's their inability to do the job. That's simply false, as there are plenty of perfectly brilliant poor kids in education and women in politics.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elementric)
    Absolutely, of course it is. They should be able to get in on their own merits, and there is no bias against them, which is as it should be.
    The issue is more social than political. It's great that poor kids are not biased against, but that's not going to tempt them into an environment asscoieted with poshness and rich people which they most often dislike.

    Read an earlier post I made about the issue and analogy of poor kids in edu and women in politics
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eradicus)
    They can influenced, but not controlled. It takes time and education for a start. Enforcing laws does not fundamentally change opinion. It might make people resent things more than ever (as it's becoming apparent on here. like you said these laws were merely designed to enforce equality, and how much resistance have they been met by because of that?)
    ^ Great point, that's what I've been trying to say. And that's why what I'm advocating is not discrimination through affirmative action, but simply a new approach to the representation of social classes/sexes in politics, education, etc.

    People need to see more poor kids in edu and women in politics to lose their subconscious atttitude and cynism towards them - I don't suggest forcing women and poor kids into edu and plitics, but merely just encouraging them and being more welcoming.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    Of course you can't fight fire with fire, and that's not what I'm advocating. As I replied to someone earlier, the kind of action suggested for political seats to make them more open and appealing to women is similar to what has been done with poor pupils who have been given a nudge, or help, or whatever you'd call it, to get into higher education, a privilege historically asscociated with rich people. Just because poor people can get into higher education doesn't mean they will. People need to be shown through politics and the media that the world has indeed changed and that cynism is inappropriate. Surely you don't consider the above example with poor children discrimination against the rich kids. It's simply a social reform aimed at encouraging people from unlikely backgrounds to consider what they couldn't before - education for the poor, as politics for women - it doesn't mean rich kids are smarter, it doesn't mean men are better at politics. It's just a consequence of the past that still dominates today and needs to be remediated.
    I entirely disagree with social engineering to get poorer students into uni's and yes I do think its discrimination against those who are from wealthier families, why should a poor child get an advantage over a wealthier kid when they are the same academically.
    You are what you make of yourself, I am from a poor family, I didnt need the government to tell me that I should go to uni, I thought it was important and wanted to do better, i am the only person in my family to go to university. Poverty is not an excuse for not wanting to better yourself. I didnt give a damn about fitting in, or not being accepted, if others arent prepared to do the same and work for what they want they dont belong there.

    If you want something and you are good enough, you will get it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darkness and Mist)
    I entirely disagree with social engineering to get poorer students into uni's and yes I do think its discrimination against those who are from wealthier families, why should a poor child get an advantage over a wealthier kid when they are the same academically.
    You are what you make of yourself, I am from a poor family, I didnt need the government to tell me that I should go to uni, I thought it was important and wanted to do better, i am the only person in my family to go to university. Poverty is not an excuse for not wanting to better yourself.

    If you want something and you are good enough, you will get it.
    I appreciate your point and I agree.

    However politics is concerned with the whole society and that's why there needs to be a better attitude towards poor kids going to uni and women being politicians.

    Helping poor kids get into uni is not about making sure that they have an advantage or priority and it isn't about them getting any help after they've decided to go to uni, but before. Getting into uni is up to the smartest and most capable, but considering uni altogether is another issue. A lot of poor children don't even consider uni and a lot of those children would actually make a great difference because they are smart and hard working. We as a society want to make sure for our own good that the best people work in the country and use well towards the general wellbeing of society the tax money we pay that go towards higher education.

    When poor kids avoid uni because it's not appealing due to the ingrained negative attitude created by unis basically being associated with rich people (and indirectly, education, intelligence and social power), then we know there is a problem in the managing of education and society.

    That's why we need to make an effort to change these destructive attitudes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    I appreciate your point and I agree.

    However politics is concerned with the whole society and that's why there needs to be a better attitude towards poor kids going to uni and women being politicians.

    Helping poor kids get into uni is not about making sure that they have an advantage or priority and it isn't about them getting any help after they've decided to go to uni, but before. Getting into uni is up to the smartest and most capable, but considering uni altogether is another issue. A lot of poor children don't even consider uni and a lot of those children would actually make a great difference because they are smart and hard working. We as a society want to make sure for our own good that the best people work in the country and use well towards the general wellbeing of society the tax money we pay that go towards higher education.

    When poor kids avoid uni because it's not appealing due to the ingrained negative attitude created by unis basically being associated with rich people (and indirectly, education, intelligence and social power), then we know there is a problem in the managing of education and society.

    That's why we need to make an effort to change these destructive attitudes.

    I am sorry but education, intelligence and social power are all desireable things, if somebody chooses not to go for it then that is their problem, it is not the responsibility of the state to act, if there is an ingrained culture that dissents from that and people would rather care about social opinions rather than their future then I dont think they belong in university. I think providing financial support for those who want to go but are poor is the furthest it should go.

    And back to politics I dont think there is an institutional problem, there may be problems with individuals within the system, but that will always be the case in anything (discrimination against male nurses etc) the state has a responsibility to safeguard rights, equality laws are very important, but not tell people what to think.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    Affirmative action plans aim to work for the sake of a "greater good" and I think that's incorrect.

    However, things can be changed without discrimination. For example, poor kids not getting into higher education is most often due to the culture that insinuates higher education is for rich people and creeps in the children's minds in circumstances which clearly contradict the myths.

    For example, you're a poor kid - you know that the government will give you loans and stuff like that to support your education, you know you're smart enough to do it, but you're put off my the continuous association of higher education with rich people and your attitude towards it is that "It's not for me", despite the fact that the government is trying to help and change the mindset of society.

    Affirmative action might not be the most sensible thing to do, but these people need to be somehow introduced to a new approach to higher education and social class.

    Same for politics. Women can very well become great politicians, but for some reason they don't. It's because the political world still is male-dominated and male-orientated and women just don't seem to "fit it" properly. People still have biased attitudes towards women already in politics, similarly to those of poor kids in education. They think there must be something wrong with them. Most of the time, it's their inability to do the job. That's simply false, as there are plenty of perfectly brilliant poor kids in education and women in politics.
    I really don't get what you're trying to say - are you advocating affirmative action or not? Because no matter how you try and spin it, affirmatvie action IS discrimination.

    Anyway, you are still wrong. Many women do become politicians right up to the highest level (ie. Margret Thatcer). Just because there is not a 50/50 split between men and women in parliament does not necessarily mean people have biased attitudes towards women in politics or women are put off entering politics. The fact is that men and women aren't the same (although they are and should always be equal in rights) and it's not surprising that certain careers are dominated by one of the sexes.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aeonflux)
    I really don't get what you're trying to say - are you advocating affirmative action or not? Because no matter how you try and spin it, affirmatvie action IS discrimination.

    Anyway, you are still wrong. Many women do become politicians right up to the highest level (ie. Margret Thatcer). Just because there is not a 50/50 split between men and women in parliament does not necessarily mean people have biased attitudes towards women in politics or women are put off entering politics. The fact is that men and women aren't the same (although they are and should always be equal in rights) and it's not surprising that certain careers are dominated by one of the sexes.

    No, I'm not advocating affirmative action in its political definition.

    And stop giving the example of Margaret Thatcher because it's simply the exception that confirms the rule, and it's not right waiting for exceptions just to make up a new rule or brake another rule. We're talking about general politics not a certain particular case. It's not about what one single person can do, it's about what the whole society can do (and does).

    Yes, it's not surprising or wrong that certain careers are dominated by women or men, but the problem with politics is that there's now way of knowing whether men are dominating politics because of the reinforcing past and beliefs or because of the job's appeal to men, or if there's a correlation. The only way to find this out is to erase the all-male image politics has and make it a more respected field for women, and frankly, the youth.

    The senior male image of politics must be challenged, and if it's good enough, it will win. If it refuses the challenge, maybe then it fears the challenge. Simple as.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elementric)
    Absolutely, of course it is. They should be able to get in on their own merits, and there is no bias against them, which is as it should be.
    bullsh*t. The 20k+ fee payers in the top London schools are basically a supply line for Oxbridge, that's how it's always worked. You an imbecile if you believe in the notion that self-improvement is enough. It isnt.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eradicus)
    bullsh*t. The 20k+ fee payers in the top London schools are basically a supply line for Oxbridge, that's how it's always worked. You an imbecile if you believe in the notion that self-improvement is enough. It isnt.



    Don't be dramatic, the majority of the Oxbridge intake is from state schools nowadays.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eradicus)
    bullsh*t. The 20k+ fee payers in the top London schools are basically a supply line for Oxbridge, that's how it's always worked. You an imbecile if you believe in the notion that self-improvement is enough. It isnt.
    Irrelevant. You obviously have little clue of what you're talking about. Oxbridge isn't the be all and end all of anything; if students can't get into Oxbridge, there are plenty of other universities which they can get into on their own merits and which will be more suited to their academic ability and knowledge.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    No, I'm not advocating affirmative action in its political definition.

    And stop giving the example of Margaret Thatcher because it's simply the exception that confirms the rule, and it's not right waiting for exceptions just to make up a new rule or brake another rule. We're talking about general politics not a certain particular case. It's not about what one single person can do, it's about what the whole society can do (and does).

    Yes, it's not surprising or wrong that certain careers are dominated by women or men, but the problem with politics is that there's now way of knowing whether men are dominating politics because of the reinforcing past and beliefs or because of the job's appeal to men, or if there's a correlation. The only way to find this out is to erase the all-male image politics has and make it a more respected field for women, and frankly, the youth.

    The senior male image of politics must be challenged, and if it's good enough, it will win. If it refuses the challenge, maybe then it fears the challenge. Simple as.
    There are many female MPs, Margaret Thatcher is simply a good example because she proves that there is nothing stopping women getting to the top in politics.

    People don't need the nanny state telling them what careers they can and can't do, I don't really think it's the governments business to interfere. Any woman who elects not to enter politics because of the 'all-male image' you claim exists is clearly not cut out for politics in the first place. It's an extremely competitive career, and women that are good enough can, do and will make the cut.

    Anyway, we have sort of strayed from the original topic of this debate - Do you think one of Labour's top two posts should always be held by a woman, or do you think they should be held by the top two people for the jobs regardless of gender?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aeonflux)
    There are many female MPs, Margaret Thatcher is simply a good example because she proves that there is nothing stopping women getting to the top in politics.

    People don't need the nanny state telling them what careers they can and can't do, I don't really think it's the governments business to interfere. Any woman who elects not to enter politics because of the 'all-male image' you claim exists is clearly not cut out for politics in the first place. It's an extremely competitive career, and women that are good enough can, do and will make the cut.

    Anyway, we have sort of strayed from the original topic of this debate - Do you think one of Labour's top two posts should always be held by a woman, or do you think they should be held by the top two people for the jobs regardless of gender?
    I've posted numerous replies on this thread and I've just realised that I've never actually talked about the topic itself :laugh:

    Um, no, it would be dumb to have the positions "fixed". However, I don't understand why people react as if she's "sexist", and assume that the other canditate for the position would be male. Maybe it wouldn't be male, maybe 2 women would have to fight for it.

    Also, forcing someone into politics just because of their gender/race/etc. is going to do damage.

    So the woman, whatever her name is, is wrong to suggest a woman should forcingly be put into the position, but has a good point by saying that a majority of men in power are less likely to represent women as well as women would. However objective and insightful one is, it's still not as if they experienced things thmeselves.

    As a black man better stands up for blacks' rights than any white man, a woman better stands up for women's rights than any man. And although politics is usually not concerned with the soft issues of gender/race/etc. in core issues like health, education, immigration, etc. the difference still counts for as little as it does.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    As a black man better stands up for blacks' rights than any white man, a woman better stands up for women's rights than any man. And although politics is usually not concerned with the soft issues of gender/race/etc. in core issues like health, education, immigration, etc. the difference still counts for as little as it does.
    What about someone to stand up for white's rights or men's rights?

    You are also assuming that a woman will stand up for women's rights. As this article shows that is not true.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    What about someone to stand up for white's rights or men's rights?
    Politics are 90% run by white males.


    Asking for more makes you a hypocrite. But other than that, no-one is stopping any white males from representing themselves. I know of no organization/ideology/group that is against white males. They're just "default" people.

    I'm joking though, white males probably need representation and support in issues like... I don't know, you tell me.

    I don't know about "white males", but I know about males generally. More men should stand up against being seen as mere breeding machines, sexual predators, money machines, sperm donors, etc.

    I hear so many men answer at the question "Why do women need men?", "Because they can't have children without men"

    And I'm like WTF?? So men are just sperm machines? Seriously, is there nothing more to people than sperm, eggs, money and boob implants?

    People get so anxious nowadays about why they're necessary to others. You don't need to be necessary, you're just another person with a unique combination of characteristics which can be loved for what it is.

    It's like some competition "Who's more needed in society?"

    Well I ain't taking part.
 
 
 
  • 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.