Gender politics suck. First, we get the whiny litany from Anne-Marie Slaughter about how this 50-speech-a-year, former policy planning director, Princeton dean and mom can’t have it all. Thanks Anne-Marie. Who has it all? Then we get this tripe from some Progressive Policy Institute woman who’s grumpy there aren’t more women at think tanks. Even at the “venerable” Brookings Institution, she moans, there aren’t too many women; but (duh) “right-wing think tanks” are the “worst offenders.” We “look like the membership of Augusta National.” Oh please. I won’t speak for Heritage, but at AEI, we don’t give a damn what your gender or your color is; we don’t care how you put on your pants in the morning, whether you wear a skirt, or if you once played French horn in a Barcelona band. (OK, that’s unacceptable.)“We care about the work people do, the quality of the product, the difference we can make in Washington and for the nation.” -Danielle Pletka

We care about the work people do, the quality of the product, the difference we can make in Washington and for the nation. We don’t set aside seats for women any more than we set aside seats for women in our Congress. Why are some people so obsessed with counting up their seats? What do they think they’re missing? Would they rather be women in Rwanda, the Seychelles, Angola, or Belarus — all cited by our PPI accuser as having more women in government than the rotten old U.S. of A? Are we going to be better served by more women economists? More chicks in foreign policy? More high heels pondering the education mess? Tell me, what are you looking for here except more entitlements, more special treatment, more set asides, more demeaning quotas?

Who wants to be hired because she is a woman? I’ll tell you: A woman who knows she isn’t the best for the job and is looking for preferential treatment. You want to work here at AEI? Great. Send me your awesome resume, show me your platinum degrees, hand over your testimony, your writing, and your collection of super op-eds. Oh, don’t have that? Then sit down, and shut up.

http://www.aei.org/publication/whiny-women-unite/

1 100% agree with Danielle on this.

Putting women in positions based on gender or filling a quota only says the woman can't get there on a free and fair competition.

....Where women see themselves as second individual,waiting on men to do thing for them.

bukatyne:
1 100% agree with Danielle on this.

Putting women in positions based on gender or filling a quota only says the woman can't get there on a free and fair competition.

...sounds logical to me too...proffering jobs to individuals; no matter the gender, or appointment to high offices should be governed by meritocracy, and meritocracy alone...

bukatyne:
1 100% agree with Danielle on this.

Putting women in positions based on gender or filling a quota only says the woman can't get there on a free and fair competition.

What if women actually can't get into some positions on a free and fair competition? Should they then be completely ignored?

buggaboo:


What if women actually can't get into some positions on a free and fair competition? Should they then be completely ignored?

Do you have examples of constraints in mind?

I guess OP is becoming a misogynist. All those in support of the fraudulent Gender Equality Bill should be made to read this. You're either good enough or you aren't.

buggaboo:


What if women actually can't get into some positions on a free and fair competition? Should they then be completely ignored?

Then the decision in their favour should be to institute a free and fair competitive environment, not hand them freebies.

It be like say some of these feminist--there-must-be-gender-equality women don begin to get sense oo...

crackhaus:
It be like say some of these feminist--there-must-be-gender-equality women don begin to get sense oo...

Sense? We'll see about that when it comes to nuanced opinions not copy-and-paste regurgitation.

Bukatyne is somebody I cannot understand , or do you walk with the spirit?

lilmax:
Bukatyne is somebody I cannot understand , or do you walk with the spirit?

Which one be spirit matter again?

You don't understand my moniker how?

darkenedrebel:


...sounds logical to me too...proffering jobs to individuals; no matter the gender, or appointment to high offices should be governed by meritocracy, and meritocracy alone...

Double post

darkenedrebel:


...sounds logical to me too...proffering jobs to individuals; no matter the gender, or appointment to high offices should be governed by meritocracy, and meritocracy alone...

True.

It would help people sit up and push them beyond their initial limits.

It also gives a certain joy that 'I worked for this'.

Not ruling out favour & grace.

Timbuktou:
I guess OP is becoming a misogynist. All those in support of the fraudulent Gender Equality Bill should be made to read this. You're either good enough or you aren't.



Then the decision in their favour should be to institute a free and fair competitive environment, not hand them freebies.

Unable to read the GEB so can't comment on that.

@Second paragraph, true.

crackhaus:
It be like say some of these feminist--there-must-be-gender-equality women don begin to get sense oo...

I just think you have been blind all the while.

This has always been my stance on quota systems.

Welcome to the light.

Timbuktou:


Sense? We'll see about that when it comes to nuanced opinions not copy-and-paste regurgitation.

And I will post and state I agree if this is not my stance?

How wise of you.

bukatyne:


Unable to read the GEB so can't comment on that.

@Second paragraph, true.

Well, the summary of it is everywhere even on nairaland. I'm sure a quick Google consultation will point you in the right direction.

Of course, I speaks nuffin but troof.

bukatyne:


And I will post and state I agree if this is not my stance?

How wise of you.

Thanks, hun. I do try hard to be wise.

bukatyne:
1 100% agree with Danielle on this.

Putting women in positions based on gender or filling a quota only says the woman can't get there on a free and fair competition.

There is some value in diversity. Merit is great but sometimes when decision making is made by people with a similar background or view, then you may not get the best views.

Even in the most developed countries, they insist on a level of diversity. The real value such women bring to boards, management, etc is just diversity.

TooNoisy:


There is some value in diversity. Merit is great but sometimes when decision making is made by people with a similar background or view, then you may not get the best views.

Even in the most developed countries, they insist on a level of diversity. The real value such women bring to boards, management, etc is just diversity.

Hello TooNoisy, I'd have to disagree with you here. Gender Diversity is a fluff concept devoid of substance. After all, who's to say which woman/women should be sent to represent all other women. What criteria would be employed in this person? Do you just go pick any woman, do you pick the woman you know, do you pick the best woman? How do you pick?

What is necessary is Intellectual Diversity, a by-product of merit, here the deciding factor would be superior argument rather than feelings. When this diversity you advocate is established, you stifle merit, productivity and efficiency.

Europe is currently biting their fingers at the diversity mantra, let's not be too swift to copy these guys. The author also notes that even though Angola has more diveristy in parliament than the US, the general society is worse, even for women. One quick fact: women in Nigeria were able to cast votes decades before their Belgian counterparts. Does that mean Nigerian women have it better than Belgian women?

Timbuktou:


Hello TooNoisy, I'd have to disagree with you here. Gender Diversity is a fluff concept devoid of substance. After all, who's to say which woman/women should be sent to represent all other women. What criteria would be employed in this person?

What is necessary is Intellectual Diversity, a by-product of merit, here the deciding factor would be superior argument rather than feelings.

Take note that when this diversity to advocate is established, you stifle merit, productivity and efficiency.

nice one

Timbuktou:


Hello TooNoisy, I'd have to disagree with you here. Gender Diversity is a fluff concept devoid of substance. After all, who's to say which woman/women should be sent to represent all other women. What criteria would be employed in this person? Do you just go pick any woman, do you pick the woman you know, do you pick the best woman? How do you pick?

What is necessary is Intellectual Diversity, a by-product of merit, here the deciding factor would be superior argument rather than feelings. When this diversity you advocate is established, you stifle merit, productivity and efficiency.

Europe is currently biting their fingers at the diversity mantra, let's not be too swift to copy these guys. The author also notes that even though Angola has more diveristy in parliament than the US, the general society is worse, even for women. One quick fact: women in Nigeria were able to cast votes decades before their Belgian counterparts. Does that mean Nigerian women have it better than Belgian women?

Intellectual diversity you talk of sometimes comes from Gender diversity. Sometimes merit can be difficult to measure in absolute terms. If you want to choose a board member for a cooperation, there may be many people who are qualified for the job. Sometimes companies choose based on gender based on the diversity they can bring. I am not talking of bringing any woman from the street, however if a board consists of 10 members and they are all men and they want to bring in another member. They interview and find a man and a woman who are both qualified to fill the role, then adding a woman may bring diversity without compromising merit! It is wisdom!

TooNoisy:


Intellectual diversity you talk of sometimes comes from Gender diversity. Sometimes merit can be difficult to measure in absolute terms. If you want to choose a board member for a cooperation, there may be many people who are qualified for the job. Sometimes companies choose based on gender based on the diversity they can bring. I am not talking of bringing any woman from the street, however if a board consists of 10 members and they are all men and they want to bring in another member. They interview and find a man and a woman who are both qualified to fill the role, then adding a woman may bring diversity without compromising merit! It is wisdom!

If you aren't just picking any woman off the street and are using the most qualified woman, then the most qualified woman better be able to hold her own against the most qualified men. It is unjust for a man who scored 70% marks on criteria to be excluded from being rewarded while welding on a woman who manages 60% for the aim of diversity. That already defeats the purpose of competition and instituting said criteria in the first place. After all, the purpose of criteria and competition is to determine suitability and value.

Therefore, if a diverse group wants to be included in any situation, they better prove that they deserve to be there. All you have to do is look at our education sector in this country and see the direct result of quota system. Also, companies hiring female executives is hardly a matter of just having women in an abstract arbitrary sense. If it is not as a result of government policy, re: affirmative action, it's because whichever woman is employed is deemed suitable for the aims and purposes of said company and they find her services valuable to them. Don't forget, one doesn't need to be a board member to sit in on or contribute at board meetings. Etc, etc.

Sense...

Timbuktou:


Sense? We'll see about that when it comes to nuanced opinions not copy-and-paste regurgitation.

Tehehehehe...

bukatyne:


I just think you have been blind all the while.

This has always been my stance on quota systems.

Welcome to the light.

Tehehehehe...

TooNoisy:


There is some value in diversity. Merit is great but sometimes when decision making is made by people with a similar background or view, then you may not get the best views.

Even in the most developed countries, they insist on a level of diversity. The real value such women bring to boards, management, etc is just diversity.

I agree with you that diversity is very important and helps in decision making.

However, I think the quota system would not let people appreciate the true potential of the woman and the woman herself would not appreciate the position.

TooNoisy:


Intellectual diversity you talk of sometimes comes from Gender diversity. Sometimes merit can be difficult to measure in absolute terms. If you want to choose a board member for a cooperation, there may be many people who are qualified for the job. Sometimes companies choose based on gender based on the diversity they can bring. I am not talking of bringing any woman from the street, however if a board consists of 10 members and they are all men and they want to bring in another member. They interview and find a man and a woman who are both qualified to fill the role, then adding a woman may bring diversity without compromising merit! It is wisdom!

I get you now.

@ Bold: this is not really quota as the woman is also qualified.