Opinions please (law school, cabinet, law)

[anthonyr]

I'm debating a topic in school, and would like to get the opinions of some of the posters on this board - Some of you guy's have really good insight.
Here is what I'm debating:

"Quotas should be set in all countries of the world that ensure women hold at least 40 per cent of all legislative seats and 50 per cent of all ministerial/cabinet positions by the year 2015".

I'm the Con debator on this topic - I think this idea is not only an infringment on democracy, but is absolutely absurd. Many countries around the world have set the quota at 30 % instead of the 40%, and I need some ideas other than my own as to why this is a bad idea. What questions would you ask a person who thinks this is a good idea?

Thanks for the help

[Stephan_K]

My first question would be

what happened to electing the best candidate weather they be male, female pink or orange ?

Ridiculous to have that kind of standard in place IMO.

[anthonyr]

Originally Posted by Stephan_K

My first question would be

what happened to electing the best candidate weather they be male, female pink or orange ?

Ridiculous to have that kind of standard in place IMO.

I agree- by making it mandatory for a quota like this, they are discriminating against the other- the man in this case- Many countries in Europe, Africa, etc. are establishing mandatory quota's - regardless of who is best qualified. We can all thank the U.N. for pushing this agenda on countries that they want to be democratic, but only on the U.N.'s terms.

[mtboy]

A couple interesting questions I have are what would happen if this quota is not met, do they just grab the next closest candidate which is female and throw her in even if she didn't even get close to a majority vote. For instances, let's say only 10% of the vote goes to her, 10% to male candidate 1, 30% male candidate 2, and 50% male candiate 3 ... but she is the next closest candidate which is female, and you need one female to meet the quota, what do you do? If you just take the female to meet the quota your discriminating because male candidate 1 recieved the same % of the votes. What would happen if it was exceeded let's say 90% female and 10% male? is there a reverse stipulation saying there has to be at least x% of males too. If not then that is considered sexist and descrimination. What you offer for one sex you must offer for the other.

[FiveHorses]

Ohhhh boy.

Quotas, by their very nature, result in reverse discrimination. Quotas signal the end of what made America the country it is (or was, depending on your point of view) - a meritocracy.

Affirmative action, be it by race or gender or numbers of freckles, has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. (U of MI law school wasn't it?) I believe the justices summations are a matter of public record, so you should be able to get access to them somewhere online.

And have a look for one of the latest cases before the Supreme Court. Mr. Ricci vs. the New Haven, CT fire department. Although this case is not about gender, it is about quotas. The background should provide you with some very good ammunition.

[Reziac]

Equality is giving everyone an equal opportunity to leap over the bar.

Egalitarianism is forcing the bar low enough that everyone can jump over it.

[RickieInPhx]

Mandating 40% be female is just as stupid and mandating that 60% be male.

Questions...
1. "Since we're mandating 40% female can we go ahead and mandate the other 60% be male? If not, then why not? Why is that bad?"

2. "Why stop at 40%, why not 60, 80, or 100%? Why not also mandate that 100% of Government employees be female also? What if it was 100% male, would that be ok?"

3. "Whats wrong with finding the best person for a job regardless of skin color or which version of reproductive organs are present."

4. "Speaking of reproductive organs, what about hermaphrodites? They have both so can they qualify for the 40% or should they be given their own 10%. What about transsexuals? If you were born with an outtie but now have an innie do you qualify? "

5. "What if there are only enough women applying for the positions that it would only fill 30% of the spots even if all were picked? Does the mean we go out on the street and randomly pick another 10%? If we do that then do we look for anything even resembling a qualification or is the presences of ovaries enough?"

[seven of nine]

Originally Posted by FiveHorses

Ohhhh boy.

Quotas, by their very nature, result in reverse discrimination. Quotas signal the end of what made America the country it is (or was, depending on your point of view) - a meritocracy.

Affirmative action, be it by race or gender or numbers of freckles, has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. (U of MI law school wasn't it?) I believe the justices summations are a matter of public record, so you should be able to get access to them somewhere online.

And have a look for one of the latest cases before the Supreme Court. Mr. Ricci vs. the New Haven, CT fire department. Although this case is not about gender, it is about quotas. The background should provide you with some very good ammunition.

Impressive five.Thou speak judicial.

[yyz1]

Seems just downright patronizing. Are women not smart enough, capable enough to be able to get elected on their own merit?

[AllTheWayToMemphis]

You guys should do some research on this topic. Women often have a hard time getting elected into political office because it is traditionally seen as a "man's" position -- I'm not saying that plenty of women DON'T get elected, just that it is harder for them to do so. Also, it has been documented in many studies that women work more cooperatively and towards more peace-keeping activities than men, who tend to all try to prove their opinion has the only right opinion and who have more of a tendency to solve things with war.