The Greens have announced a commitment to make half the Cabinet women. It’s an excellent start, but to make such commitments bigger than a political gesture, it should be extended to the Board of Directors of every public department and company. The Private Sector are always arguing they don’t have enough experienced women coming through the ranks when explaining their appalling rates of gender balance at the top levels of business. The State sector could help train and generate that new wave of women moving into executive roles.
A gender balanced Cabinet is great, but symbolism is just that – symbolism. We want women throughout business to be able to move forwards in their career paths with the same autonomy as men, that’s the point of living in a liberal democracy.
By driving the demand of women leadership up within state companies and departments, all women, not just those within the Political establishment, would benefit.
Oh, and my advice to the #CTUvoice15 conference this year are 9 simple words.
Rally the Base
Convince the Middle
Isolate the Right
Martyn are saying that were the Green’s to become the Government and implement the Policy of equal gender at Cabinet level, they should also enact legislation making it mandatory for all Board of Directors of every public department and company? You know what happened when the Govt regulated for the sale of efficient light bulbs and shower heads.
Once upon a time male physical strength was valued more than other skills to create a surplus, feed the colonies and further his genetic line.
That’s no longer the case. Today a half calorie effort can create trillions, and further genetic lines. It’s a social Darwinism utopia.
Because physical strength is no longer valued like it use to. It is a mistake not to value the work woman do like we value male jobs. Cleaning jobs, the care industry, netball and other woman’s sport.
What the solutions are is an opened ended question woman should answer.
Yeah a lot of people will be hating on this decision because they think job positions should only be filled based on merit, not gender. They forget this is fucking politicians we’re discussing here, where it makes literally no difference if you have men or women in the job: they’re both just as likely to under-perform, rip off tax payers with non-costed boondoggles, pander to banksters, pander to the US, pander to China, pander to big business, raise/lower taxes, pursue personal financial gain, pursue cushy jobs at embassies/UN etc – all depending ENTIRELY on PARTY POLITICS, not individual freedom of thought or personal ideals. Think Judith Collins, Paula Bennett etc. The only difference is that certain types gravitate to certain parties, but make no mistake: none of them bring anything tangible that those of the opposing gender wouldn’t have brought.
So let me get this straight…the plan is to appoint people to the job based on gender and therefore using gender discrimination…to try to combat gender discrimination. They need to listen to themselves!
Sheer lunacy from sheer lunatics.
No you didn’t get that straight – that is not what the policy is. The Greens already create their Parliamentary list with equal gender balance (actually after Russell Norman leaves Parliament and his replacement MP is Marama Davidson the gender balance will be 57% in favour of women). So as Cabinet is determined by the Prime Minister it will be the task of the PM to appoint from within their caucus the persons they consider to be most suitable for the role – bearing in mind that they should ensure a gender balance. It is not discriminatory at all! You need to look up the dictionary as to what constitutes discrimination ie “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people”. There is nothing unjust about ensuring equal opportunities.
The truly surprising thing, Macro, is that some people are still arguing this.
What next – a debate whether women should be allowed to vote? And what about that thorny issue of slavery – can we afford to emancipate the slaves? And don’t get me started on independence for India from Her Majesty’s glorious Empire…
“Bearing in mind that they should ensure a gender balance.”
Yep, that’s what I said. It is illegal to appoint based on gender. Gender may be considered in specific circumstances, eg, a housemistress position in an all-girls boarding school, but to appoint a woman because you want more women on the board is not only seen in contemporary law as illegal discrimination against the equally qualified male applicants, but may also do the organisation a dissservice if there happen to be male applicants better suited to the job.
In your take on this, you are the one exercising “prejudicial treatment of different categories of people” by deciding at the outset that we “need more females in this position” before you even look at the list of applicants.
On principal, you are being prejudicial in the form of gender discrimination by deciding from the outset that you are going to appoint based on gender.
Well, that is the way that the employment court judge would view it anyway.
So what you’re really telling us is that the reason women don’t comprise 51% of Parliament is because they aren’t as good enough? And you’re using anti-discimination laws to justify your position?
‘Cos that’s pretty much how it comes across.
Half right. The first half. Yes, maybe they “aren’t as good enough.”
Mike@NZ – if merit-based selection already exists, why aren’t 51% of Parliament and the Cabinet, women?
Do you have any answer to that question?
Because less women choose to become politician’s.
Evidence of that assertion, please?
Goooooose. That doesn’t mean less woman want to change that situation
Because your average politician knows that a position is filled based on merit in a merit based system, so gender doesn’t come in to it.
To pick “her” purely “because she is a woman and we need more women on this board” is to appoint by gender, which is as illegal in this country as appointing (or not appointing) based on religion, sexual orientation or race.
Methinks you’re warping the anti-discrimination law to suit your purpose.
In effect, you’re using the anti-discrimination law to justify discrimination. Using your tactic, anyone can discriminatate and then justify it by saying, “Hey, if I’d picked the woman or Pacifica for XYZ, I’d be guilty of discrimination. I picked purely on merit, which is why XYZ happens to be all white and all male.”
After all Mike@NZ, are you trying to say there are only two women in this image because no other woman merited a position; http://www.teara.govt.nz/files/33083-atl.jpg
I didn’t say that. I said that when we appoint people to a position, our selection process must, by law, remain gender neutral. What this post is promoting is filling positions using a gender quota as a criteria.
That is illegal under present employment law.
Don’t you think, Mike@NZ, that if that were true, then natural processes would result in 51% of Parliamentarians being women?
What do you think is preventing Parliament representing society’s gender ratio?
Because it seems to me that there is something at play here where women are the majority gender in society, but men are dominant in power.
As for being ” illegal under present employment law” – you appear to be keen to support gender discrimination entrenched in law?
But you are quite wrong.
The Human Rights ACT 1993 specifically allows for positive discrimination;
Ref: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304672.html
So your concerns in this area is not supported in law.
Well, well. Turns out That you are in fact right, although now I’m afraid to admit it.
Here you are accusing me of supporting gender discrimination entrenched in law, which of course I am not. I am a supporter of the idea of equal OPPORTUNITY, as opposed to a theory of equal representation by law. Yes, the law appears to clearly state that as an employer I may use gender discrimination as a means of fulfilling a gender quota on my workforce, if my intention is to boast that I am an equal opportunity employer.
I would not be a truly equal opportunity employer in that case because I would have, in my effort to show that I will employ anyone, discounted 49% of the population on the basis of gender. And that Mr Macskasy, is gender discrimination, which appears to be, according to your last post, sanctioned by law.
As an aside, I must say that I am saddened by your belief that women need to be represented by women. Rather sexist and simplistic in my view.
Eh?
I’m rather saddened that you’ve attributed a comment to me I never made. 😮
Because less women of suitable merit choose to become politicians.
In other words, the most suitable women for the job have so far chosen to do something more meaningful to them.
Such as?
It can’t be senior management or Board Directors, ‘cos they’re mostly male as well.
Where are all these ” most suitable women … [who] have so far chosen to do something more meaningful to them”?
They are doing something more meaningful to them, that’s where they are. How do I know what else, that’s their choice and they are obviously making it.
So, you don’t know what those “meaningful choices are”, Mike@NZ? Maybe cooking, cleaning, having babies… y’know, ‘Women’s Place’ and all that stuff.
‘Cos they sure as hell aren’t in Board Rooms or Parliament, are they?
Just because they’re not in boardrooms or parliament doesn’t mean that they are not doing something meaningful.
I’d like to see women comment on this post. I’m less interested in the male perspective just at the moment. Politicians are an odd breed anyway. But this proposal seems a weeny bit like over compensation for massive inherited male guilt. It seems slightly superficial tokenism. If members were chosen on merit, all positions would be held by women. (Ducks)
Comments are closed.