Women-only Parliament: it could be a good thing?

[Chessmistress]

I wish to made it VERY clear: I do NOT support the idea of a women-only Parliament, I feel that would be a too extreme idea and it's even very likely to backfire because too much expectations would be on the women in power
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNRHJWee9G8

Still, I find interesting and mostly right the idea that more women in power would mean a more balanced and more efficient Parliament.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/ ... land-women

Iceland's spectacular meltdown was caused by a banking and business culture that was buccaneering, reckless - and overwhelmingly male. Business editor Ruth Sunderland travelled to Reykjavik to meet the women now running the country, and heard how they are determined to reinvent business and society by injecting values of openness, fairness and social responsibility

And
http://ellafestival.com/johanna-sigurdardottir/

How do you view women in politics?

JÓHANNA:

“I think that an increased participation of women in politics is the prerequisite of creating better and fairer societies.

Generally, women tread more carefully than men in matters of finance. They show more responsibility and prudence and are less inclined to risk-taking.”

The same idea have been highlighted in the very recent movie by Michael Moore (worth noting: a man)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4897822/?ref_=nm_flmg_prd_2

Tunisia and its strongly progressive women's policy, or Iceland and its strong female presence in government and business among others, Michael Moore discovers there is much that American should emulate.

US and, more in general, the world, would be a better place by having 50%, 60% or even 70% women within the Parliament?

What do you think NSGs?

[Dooom35796821595]

No.

[Neutraligon]

No. There are issues that men face that need to be represented. Further, by having a woman's only parliament you are not representing half the nation. If women are unable to get themselves elected, that is at least in part their own fault and they should not be in office just because they are a woman.

[Chessmistress]

No.

"No" isn't enough, I said that I don't support a similar thing, but I wish to explore people's opinion, and "no" isn't detailed enough.

[Vassenor]

Sexism is antithetical to the idea of representative democracy.

[Dooom35796821595]

No.

"No" isn't enough, I said that I don't support a similar thing, but I wish to explore people's opinion, and "no" isn't detailed enough.

It's as valid an idea as a male only parliament, a historically bad concept.

[Napkiraly]

No.

[Souseiseki]

margaret thatcher
theresa may

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I think both genders should have the same de facto opportunity at a parliamentary position, or in the case of the U.S., a congressional seat.

I don't think women make better leaders than men overall though, in particular when it comes to finance. A person who has a bad fiscal policy is someone who has a bad fiscal policy, regardless of gender.

[Chessmistress]

"No" isn't enough, I said that I don't support a similar thing, but I wish to explore people's opinion, and "no" isn't detailed enough.

It's as valid an idea as a male only parliament, a historically bad concept.

The difference is that we experimented, in multiple countries, for a VERY long time, male-only Parliaments, and the outcome was on the whole really bad, but it never had been a women-only Parliament.
The idea is that it should last for just only two years, then people will judge the outcome...

I find the idea very interesting, but I don't support it.

[Tinhampton]

A female-only parliament would be a bad idea, and arguably as sexist as in the days when women hadn't won the right to stand for elections (some may even agree). I do believe that women should be encouraged more to engage in the art of being politicians, but not to the extent where women get elected or selected for the sake of being women (and not to the extent where men become elected because they're men, either); gender quotas are the choices of the respective nations, but some could argue that they serve the purpose of electing women for being women. The situation is bad, but it could get better.

[Italios]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had an interesting take on a similar question about when the Supreme Court would have "enough" female justices: "So now the perception is, yes, women are here to stay. And when I’m sometimes asked when will there be enough [women on the Supreme Court]? And I say when there are nine, people are shocked. But there’d been nine men, and nobody’s ever raised a question about that."

Which is a valid viewpoint - when political positions are occupied entirely by men, few eyebrows were raised until very recently, but the opposition to an all-female team seems to be stronger.

But in the interest of the people and fairness, having a parliament or positions of power split between genders seem best.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It's as valid an idea as a male only parliament, a historically bad concept.

The difference is that we experimented, in multiple countries, for a VERY long time, male-only Parliaments, and the outcome was on the whole really bad, but it never had been a women-only Parliament.
The idea is that it should last for just only two years, then people will judge the outcome...

I find the idea very interesting, but I don't support it.

Actually, the reason why the outcome has been bad is not because it's "men".

It's because the domestic and foreign policies have favored neoliberal policies in the economy, and neocon foreign policy, as well as stagnant social policies.

Women are not gonna turnabout that if they don't come up with better fiscal, foreign, and social policies. You're saying it would be better, but I don't see how they're going to be much better just because men are not in parliament/congress anymore and they're replaced by women.

I guess what I am asking is: what kind of policies would there be on an all-female congress, or, as you suggest, a majority female congress that would make it so superior than men?

[The Huskar Social Union]

No, a parliament restricted by sex or religion, ethnicity etc is a bad idea as it would lead to lack of representation of different groups in the country and probably end up with administrative discrimination as well to boot and other things such as that.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had an interesting take on a similar question about when the Supreme Court would have "enough" female justices: "So now the perception is, yes, women are here to stay. And when I’m sometimes asked when will there be enough [women on the Supreme Court]? And I say when there are nine, people are shocked. But there’d been nine men, and nobody’s ever raised a question about that."

Which is a valid viewpoint - when political positions are occupied entirely by men, few eyebrows were raised until very recently, but the opposition to an all-female team seems to be stronger.

But in the interest of the people and fairness, having a parliament or positions of power split between genders seem best.

I honestly wouldn't be shocked to see 9 female justices, as long as they're as diverse. With some conservative women, and some liberal women to "balance out" the court.

It would raise a few eyebrows if a president managed to "stack the court" like Roosevelt did during his terms in office.

[New haven america]

Nope.

[Luminesa]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had an interesting take on a similar question about when the Supreme Court would have "enough" female justices: "So now the perception is, yes, women are here to stay. And when I’m sometimes asked when will there be enough [women on the Supreme Court]? And I say when there are nine, people are shocked. But there’d been nine men, and nobody’s ever raised a question about that."

Which is a valid viewpoint - when political positions are occupied entirely by men, few eyebrows were raised until very recently, but the opposition to an all-female team seems to be stronger.

But in the interest of the people and fairness, having a parliament or positions of power split between genders seem best.

Also because there are not as many female justices to pick from...I mean...?

[Fahshist Yuflijan]

No thank you. While I do think women could be a bit more represented in politics, a whole female cabinet is stupid. Women will make the same mistakes as men, whether more often or less, we cannot predict.

A good mix of male and female will always be the best option, because both sexes will be equally represented.

[Luminesa]

The difference is that we experimented, in multiple countries, for a VERY long time, male-only Parliaments, and the outcome was on the whole really bad, but it never had been a women-only Parliament.
The idea is that it should last for just only two years, then people will judge the outcome...

I find the idea very interesting, but I don't support it.

Actually, the reason why the outcome has been bad is not because it's "men".

It's because the domestic and foreign policies have favored neoliberal policies in the economy, and neocon foreign policy, as well as stagnant social policies.

Women are not gonna turnabout that if they don't come up with better fiscal, foreign, and social policies. You're saying it would be better, but I don't see how they're going to be much better just because men are not in parliament/congress anymore and they're replaced by women.

I guess what I am asking is: what kind of policies would there be on an all-female congress, or, as you suggest, a majority female congress that would make it so superior than men?

MORE MONEY TO EDUCATION!

Possibly, anyway. That's what I'd suggest.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had an interesting take on a similar question about when the Supreme Court would have "enough" female justices: "So now the perception is, yes, women are here to stay. And when I’m sometimes asked when will there be enough [women on the Supreme Court]? And I say when there are nine, people are shocked. But there’d been nine men, and nobody’s ever raised a question about that."

Which is a valid viewpoint - when political positions are occupied entirely by men, few eyebrows were raised until very recently, but the opposition to an all-female team seems to be stronger.

But in the interest of the people and fairness, having a parliament or positions of power split between genders seem best.

Also because there are not as many female justices to pick from...I mean...?

I mean, there are plenty of female justices to pick from.

The picks are just not conservative, they're overwhelmingly liberal.

The problem with that is that, say Hillary Clinton decided to give women justices a chance, and they happen to all be liberal instead of moderates and conservatives. She'd be accused really quick by both Democrats and Republicans across the country for "stacking the court" with people who will pass through any measures liberals love.

That's the problem with appointments at the SCOTUS level. That since Roosevelt the U.S. has been icky about the concept of stacking the courts who are in favor of one candidate's agenda.

[Threlizdun]

There are two reasons for proposing this. The first is if you cling to horribly outdated notions of inherent psychological differences in men and women that views all women in terms of motherly nurturing and denies essentially all other components to their personality. This was common among some first wave feminists who thought women would make better rulers than men. It has thankfully been largely abandoned.

The second generally would involve framing it in a strange, vaguely Marxist paradigm in which women, as an oppressed class, would usurp power from their oppressors (in this instance men), and form a new class dictatorship to usher in some hypothetical state in which oppression and hierarchy whithers away with the state. Ignoring the usual complaints I have with idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat women, there is nothing to indicate anything even remotely revolutionary about this, as it still is proposing operating within the established institutions. So it's utterly worthless in that regard as well.

So we either have a early 20th century sexist or a half-assed theory on revolutionary social change that doesn't even bother to look beyond step one. Either way, there isn't anything to really talk about.

[Italios]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had an interesting take on a similar question about when the Supreme Court would have "enough" female justices: "So now the perception is, yes, women are here to stay. And when I’m sometimes asked when will there be enough [women on the Supreme Court]? And I say when there are nine, people are shocked. But there’d been nine men, and nobody’s ever raised a question about that."

Which is a valid viewpoint - when political positions are occupied entirely by men, few eyebrows were raised until very recently, but the opposition to an all-female team seems to be stronger.

But in the interest of the people and fairness, having a parliament or positions of power split between genders seem best.

I honestly wouldn't be shocked to see 9 female justices, as long as they're as diverse. With some conservative women, and some liberal women to "balance out" the court.

It would raise a few eyebrows if a president managed to "stack the court" like Roosevelt did during his terms in office.

Maybe not now, but sometime I think the near future. And it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing as long as the decision to be put on the court wasn't influenced by their gender.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had an interesting take on a similar question about when the Supreme Court would have "enough" female justices: "So now the perception is, yes, women are here to stay. And when I’m sometimes asked when will there be enough [women on the Supreme Court]? And I say when there are nine, people are shocked. But there’d been nine men, and nobody’s ever raised a question about that."

Which is a valid viewpoint - when political positions are occupied entirely by men, few eyebrows were raised until very recently, but the opposition to an all-female team seems to be stronger.

But in the interest of the people and fairness, having a parliament or positions of power split between genders seem best.

Also because there are not as many female justices to pick from...I mean...?

???

If you're saying there are less female justices for a president to pick from... That's not how it works? Before you get on the Supreme Court you have to be nominated by the president and approved by congress. Normally those nominated are powerful lawyers or politicians usually with political views in line with the president's. There's really no lack of potential nominees, regardless of gender, because there are hundreds of thousands of female lawyers out there and finding nine prominent women for nine spots isn't really that hard.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Actually, the reason why the outcome has been bad is not because it's "men".

It's because the domestic and foreign policies have favored neoliberal policies in the economy, and neocon foreign policy, as well as stagnant social policies.

Women are not gonna turnabout that if they don't come up with better fiscal, foreign, and social policies. You're saying it would be better, but I don't see how they're going to be much better just because men are not in parliament/congress anymore and they're replaced by women.

I guess what I am asking is: what kind of policies would there be on an all-female congress, or, as you suggest, a majority female congress that would make it so superior than men?

MORE MONEY TO EDUCATION!

Possibly, anyway. That's what I'd suggest.

You would.

I'm sure other women wouldn't. The question here is, why is CM so sure that a majority women's congress would be a success?

[Mefpan]

On the women-only parliament hypothetical: Chessmistress, if even you think something is too extreme when it comes to balancing out injustices of the past by creating new opposite injustices for the future, then odds are that it is indeed far too extreme, unreasonable and should not be considered a good thing on second glance.

As for getting more women interested in participating in politics? Fuck, I don't mind them doing that. If they want to, they can get into politics. Go and study some actual area of expertise and make sure you're qualified for it. If that requires sifting through economics, law or similar things, then one should do that instead of diving headfirst into historically-less-well-off-group studies classes that do zilch at earning people jobs.

[Italios]

Also because there are not as many female justices to pick from...I mean...?

I mean, there are plenty of female justices to pick from.

The picks are just not conservative, they're overwhelmingly liberal.

The problem with that is that, say Hillary Clinton decided to give women justices a chance, and they happen to all be liberal instead of moderates and conservatives. She'd be accused really quick by both Democrats and Republicans across the country for "stacking the court" with people who will pass through any measures liberals love.

That's the problem with appointments at the SCOTUS level. That since Roosevelt the U.S. has been icky about the concept of stacking the courts who are in favor of one candidate's agenda.

Right, but that's unlikely to happen. There's no term limits for justices in the Supreme Court, they stay until they retire or die, so that's usually for much longer than the normal presidential or congress term - sometimes they hold the position for decades. So normally a president doesn't get to nominate anymore than two, and those have to get approved. Considering a majority of congress is mostly Republican right now, it would be difficult getting so many liberal justices. I mean, they even refused to look at Obama's nominations for the position after Scalia's death, presumably because he would nominate someone left-wing.