Our first task is therefore to provide a clear definition of equality in the face of widespread misconceptions about its meaning as a political idea.
Click to print Opens in new window The case against gender quotas often involves the argument of merit. The logic is that we should recruit on the basis of merit, not gender; quotas recruit on the basis of gender and so are by definition unmeritocratic.
This is a myth used to justify the privilege-based status quo, argues Rainbow Murray. By focusing on political recruitment, she explains why merit and quotas are not mutually exclusive but that in fact, quotas are essential to a meritocratic system for they open up politics to everyone. One of the sticks used to beat gender quotas with is the argument of meritocracy.
This is being repeated time and again; the use of gender quotas in Ireland and the appointment of a gender-balanced cabinet in Canada are two recent examples.
The argument is underpinned by three fundamental assumptions. The first is that recruitment without gender quotas is meritocratic. The second is that there is a clear, objective definition of An argument based on gender equality in political recruitment.
And the third is that gender is an inherently unmeritocratic criterion for political representation.
I argue that none of these assumptions is true, and hence that the argument is fundamentally flawed. Firstly, recruitment without gender quotas is not meritocratic.
Rather, it is based on male gender, privilege, and an uneven playing field. It is rather insulting actually to suggest that the reason why elite, wealthy, middle-aged white men dominate politics and other echelons of power is because they deserve to — because of their greater merit.
If we are basing this assessment on inherent talent, then we are saying that rich white men are naturally superior to everybody else. If we use a justification of qualification and experience, rather than inherent talent, then we must ask ourselves whether we are using good criteria, given that the criteria serve to exclude a large part of our talent pool.
This leads to my second point. The criteria that we use to determine merit are problematic. They vary depending on whom you ask. If you ask political parties what they are looking for in a candidate, they want someone who is loyal, available, and capable of winning.
Fair enough, you might say. Loyalty to the party is certainly useful in the sense that it allows voters to base their decisions on a national party manifesto rather than the idiosyncrasies of the local candidate. And what about availability?
Is it reasonable to make politics the reserve of people with lots of spare time on their hands?
This limits politics to certain groups: That is hardly a representative sample of society. We should not exclude candidates simply because they are busy. Women often have less free time than men because they shoulder a greater proportion of domestic burdens, but this makes them adept at juggling multiple commitments and delegating where necessary.
These are skills that would serve them well when facing the many demands made of a politician. As for capable of winning, there is no evidence of voter bias against women candidatesso a woman is less capable of winning only if a man places deliberate obstacles in her way. The party ticket is the main criterion, but a number of recent studies have highlighted other things that matter to voters.
They want a candidate who is local and someone that they can relate to on a personal level. And voters may actually relate better to a woman candidate, especially if she is from a background that voters can identify with.
If you look at the academic definitions of candidate merit, you get yet another definition. We tend to focus on objective criteria such as educationincome and prior political experience. Education and income may be measures of achievement but may also be markers of social privilege.
Women tend to be at least as well educated as men, but earn lower salaries on average as a result of discrimination in the workplace. Salaries are therefore not a good indicator of merit.
Prior political experience can be an indicator of know-how, but it may also reflect privileged access to lower levels of politics. We look at existing politicians and how they got into office as our guidelines for determining what future politicians should do. The result is that we tip the playing field by favouring criteria that have already advantaged men and will continue to do so.Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality [Rebecca Groothuis] on alphabetnyc.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers.
Most evangelical discussion of the gender issue has been spent in feverish debate over the exegetical intricacies of the traditional prooftexts. Jun 17, · Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of several books, including The War Against Boys.
The case against gender quotas often involves the argument of merit. The logic is that we should recruit on the basis of merit, not gender; quotas recruit on the basis of gender and so are by definition unmeritocratic.
This is a myth used to justify the privilege-based status quo, argues Rainbow. 21/01/ "In Spain advances have been made in gender equality thanks to social mobilisation. In Scandinavian countries, on the other hand, it is more a .
An Argument for Gender Equality in Africa The twentieth- and twenty-first centuries have witnessed the most consistent global effort to end inequalities and discrimination on the basis of differences such as sex, ethnic origin, economic status. Educational equity, also referred to as equity in education, is a measure of achievement, fairness, and opportunity in alphabetnyc.com study of education equity is often linked with the study of excellence and equity..
Educational equity depends on two main factors. The first is fairness, which implies that factors specific to one's personal conditions should not interfere with the potential of.