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

[Transoxthraxia]

it's sexist.

[Ethel mermania]

Tbh couldn't be any worse than the all male governments we have had.

[Gauthier]

It would be a great thing!

In fact, we should go further! Lets split the world in half. Woman in one district, Man on another.

Segregated Nations!

No Rape!

No Gender Inequality!

No Teen Pregnancies!

UToPiA!

Hey, a cold war where men and women sneak across the borders to get some or abduct some pleasure pets.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Nothing is ideal. But for the purpose of this thread, an equally distributed parliament between men and women would be the way to go.

Personally, I'd find absolutely any mix of male, female or other genders within Parliament to be a most preferable situation, so long as they are representative of the voters' views, as opposed to their physical characteristics, in upholding democratic procedure. In this sense, I personally find gender balances to be of little importance, and I could be perfectly happy with an all-female government.

I personally believe that the argument made for women being more careful with financial matters relates to personal expenditures, which is perfectly reasonable. My concern in linking this argument to national finances lies within the extent to which any person, male, female or otherwise, would be inclined to be as careful with money that isn't explicitly theirs. As an Australian, Bronwyn Bishop comes to mind as an example of more lavish personal expenditures, though she is certainly not alone among Australian politicians in this regard, which brings me to wonder if those in power can have their traits linked reliably to their gender.

I do apologise for drawing this message out, but in summation, I believe it is best to judge one's character based on individualistic merit, rather than more generalised grouped data which, over a large sample size, is both true of the group, and wholly unreliable in determining the characteristics of the individual.

And I agree with you. Which is why I made the qualifier for the purpose of this thread. In reality, an all female or all male parliament isn't truly representative of the electorate.

[Jetan]

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

What's this? Could there actually be a thing where Chess is pro-equality?

because too much expectations would be on the women in power
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNRHJWee9G8

Ah, so it's because the poor women would have too much expectations put on them while they run the country, not because it's a bad idea in general and rather sexist to boot to exclude one sex from the goverment. Never mind then, carry on.

[Ebliania]

Tbh couldn't be any worse than the all male governments we have had.

Unless it's filled with CM's stooges.

[Prosocial]

One thing I find funny is that if the terfs ever came to power, they would have to ban all the most important feminist books, and, in fact, pretty much every book that directly led up to their own movement, because those all talk about equality and the inferior male sex might start to get dangerous ideas.
When I see, for example, European colonists in the age of exploration slaughtering and enslaving native americans, my first thought is not "Wow! How awesome would it be if some Native American settlers had given Europeans smallpox blankets instead, and murdered most of the population of Europe, taken back a bunch of slaves and then made the survivors live on reservations in desperate poverty with lots of alcoholism and suicide? Native Americans are such enlightened peoples, it would really be to the Europeans' own advantage to be dominated and conquered by them! Then they could convert them by force to superior Native American ways of life. If you need evidence, just consider this: how many continents have Native Americans raped?"
Because I'm not a deranged psychopath.
Why then, do TERFS look at all-male parliaments and say "What a great idea! The only thing wrong with it is that we should be doing it to them!." Do you seriously not realize that the people who wanted parliament to be all male also thought that it would be in the benefit of both men and women, because men are inherently better leaders? Terfs might as well be classic patriarchalists with one word changed.
Of course there's nothing new about the impulse to say that suffering yourself justifies any evil that you want to do. Just look at Israel. It's one of the most common faults of our time.
Speaking directly to you here Chessmistress: you don't have any issue with sexism. You just wish you'd been born to be in the oppressor class instead of the oppressed class. You'd be an enthusiastic chauvinist if you were a dude. I know, because I know plenty of dudes just like you. You should be ashamed.

[Okawalka]

In order to create a woman only parliament, the government would have to actively discrimination against men, which is not okay. So, no.

[Settrah]

Speaking directly to you here Chessmistress: you don't have any issue with sexism. You just wish you'd been born to be in the oppressor class instead of the oppressed class. You'd be an enthusiastic chauvinist if you were a dude. I know, because I know plenty of dudes just like you. You should be ashamed.

This bit right here, is so important. Right here.

Radical feminists are not angry because they're oppressed, they're angry because they're not the ones doing the oppressing.

Additionally. The biggest antagonist to woman is not the patriarchy, its the radical feminists. The ones grouping as many women together as they possibly can for collective consciousness and social cohesion, that makes it easier to control. If you can't be a man and control women, why not be a woman and control women?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Banning pretty much half of the population from politics? How could that go badly?

[Esternial]

Kinda sexist to assume someone is better qualified because of their gender.

Such claims are no better than the kind of sexist crap some folks utter about women.

[The Texan Union]

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...

The modern world is "on the whole really bad"? I think it's pretty decent, to be honest.

[Cynesera]

Sexism isn't an appropriate response to sexism.

[Tekeristan]

Whoever controls the pumpkin spice, controls the world

[Internationalist Bastard]

I mean equality is a good thing, and I'd have no problem if it just happened to work out that the entirety of Parliament were women, but I would never support sexism in the government.

[Natapoc]

Only allowing women to vote would likely have the desired impact to a greater effect than woman only candidates.

Trump would get almost no electoral votes if only women could vote, for example.

If you count "Exponentially increasing membership in MRMs" to be a desired impact.

I would also become a member if this happened.

[Yorkers]

margaret thatcher
theresa may

Great women.

[Purpelia]

If you actually want the sham that is democracy to be at least moderately true to its ideals than people in power should be chosen by the merit they earn and not the genitals they are born with. Jesus christ. This is like sanity 101! That fact this discussion even exists makes me ashamed to be human.

[Camicon]

I wish to made it VERY clear: I do NOT support the idea of a women-only Parliament,

Wow. What a concession. But I can't help but feel as though there is some ridiculous caveat coming...

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

Ah. Yes. The Woman-Only Parliament™ would only fail because everyone else are assholes. Of course.

Would it surprise you to learn that I do think a parliament consisting only of women could work? I mean, men did it for centuries. They had their own set of problems because of it, and a woman-only parliament would have a different set of problems, but it's not like the whole thing would spontaneously combust. It wouldn't be the best state of affairs, but it wouldn't be a fatal state of affairs.

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

Women aren't "buccaneering" or "reckless"? Men don't value "openness, fairness, and social responsibility"?

That opinion piece makes a lot of claims and assertions, without actually backing any of them up. A lot like you do, actually.

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

That is something which can be studied and analyzed. Has it been? Political theories don't hold water if they haven't been tested.

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

What does Michael Moore being a man have to do with anything?

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?

Yeah, in an ideal world there would be a roughly equal number of men and women in government. It's something that we should strive for, though not by abandoning considerations of qualification.

[Luziyca]

Sexism is antithetical to the idea of representative democracy.

This is my take on the matter.

[Kravanica]

No. And we need to stop with this notion that women are oppressed in the West and need more representation.

[Kazarogkai]

Being that they are 50% of the population it would be fair that they should receive representation accordingly as such. This would be something I would be willing to get behind. As part of my suggestions to reform the government of the USA I thought of the direct election of the senators whereby each would be elected individually via IFV. This would be done via having separate voter rolls:

Senator A would be elected via voter roll A which shall comprise all male voters, while Senator B would be elected via voter Roll B which itself shall comprise all female voters. Thereby this would guarantee a 50/50 ratio between women and men atleast in the upper house. I had other suggestions for this but this is the important part.

Another idea I had thought up would be for the establishment of 2 separate houses of the legislature, a house of brothers and a house of sisters, with each electing from among their members a patriarch/matriarch who would handle executive policy. I imagine the patriarch would handle foreign affairs and things related towards the military while the matriarch would handle domestic matters. Father has the spear and drums, Mother the land and house and all that jazz. Just some weird thoughts.

In summary: Now yes it is true women should be better represented in our government and I think it would bring a lot of positives if it were the case so I do have sympathy towards these proposals. But on the otherhand depriving an entire population out of their rights as citizens for something in between their pants? Lets just say the vast majority of the military is comprised of males and depriving them of their hard fought rights may not go over well...

[Chessmistress]

Ah. Yes. The Woman-Only Parliament™ would only fail because everyone else are assholes. Of course.

Would it surprise you to learn that I do think a parliament consisting only of women could work? I mean, men did it for centuries. They had their own set of problems because of it, and a woman-only parliament would have a different set of problems, but it's not like the whole thing would spontaneously combust. It wouldn't be the best state of affairs, but it wouldn't be a fatal state of affairs.

I agree: it's very clear that a women-only Parliament would work fine.
But NOT on the grounds that women could solve all, as she's suggesting in the video, check it: her proposal is about two years, just only two years, of a women-only Parliament, and women would be supposed to clean all the mess (made by men through centuries) in such short time.
That would be impossible, there would be unrealistical expectations and too much pressure.
It would backfire, badly, and it would give to misogynists a great weapon, maybe even enabling them to set back the clock of history.

I would also become a member if this happened.

[/quote]

It would be really wrong reacting as such in a similar situation.
Such proposal, that I don't support, isn't about depriving men of their civil and political rights, it's about a very dangerous experiment, lasting just only two years.
It would be very dangerous for women, due the reasons I stated above. It wouldn't hurt, nor even in the slighest, the men, it would hurt us.

[Camicon]

Ah. Yes. The Woman-Only Parliament™ would only fail because everyone else are assholes. Of course.

Would it surprise you to learn that I do think a parliament consisting only of women could work? I mean, men did it for centuries. They had their own set of problems because of it, and a woman-only parliament would have a different set of problems, but it's not like the whole thing would spontaneously combust. It wouldn't be the best state of affairs, but it wouldn't be a fatal state of affairs.

I agree: it's very clear that a women-only Parliament would work fine.
But NOT on the grounds that women could solve all, as she's suggesting in the video, check it: her proposal is about two years, just only two years, of a women-only Parliament, and women would be supposed to clean all the mess (made by men through centuries) in such short time.
That would be impossible, there would be unrealistical expectations and too much pressure.
It would backfire, badly, and it would give to misogynists a great weapon, maybe even enabling them to set back the clock of history.

Anyone who think that a woman-only parliament could "solve all" is either incredibly naive or incredibly ignorant.
Anyone who thinks that a woman-only parliament should be able to "clean all the mess" in two years has expectations that will never be met, and their opinion on the matter is not worth taking into consideration.

[Gauthier]

I agree: it's very clear that a women-only Parliament would work fine.
But NOT on the grounds that women could solve all, as she's suggesting in the video, check it: her proposal is about two years, just only two years, of a women-only Parliament, and women would be supposed to clean all the mess (made by men through centuries) in such short time.
That would be impossible, there would be unrealistical expectations and too much pressure.
It would backfire, badly, and it would give to misogynists a great weapon, maybe even enabling them to set back the clock of history.

Anyone who think that a woman-only parliament could "solve all" is either incredibly naive or incredibly ignorant.
Anyone who thinks that a woman-only parliament should be able to "clean all the mess" in two years has expectations that will never be met, and their opinion on the matter is not worth taking into consideration.

Or is ironically pushing a narrative that women are incapable of running government.