An argument over dinner

would it be fair if someone who identified as male got pregnant and wanted the full maternity leave a woman would get compared to the length of time a man would get.
or is that feminism
 
You have 6 positions and in the hope of achieving equality, you base them with a priority to gender?

Gender should not come into it at all if it was real equality. Equality in the case of employment is about equal opportunity and equal treatment, not being favoured over another person because all the pasty positions have been filled.
 
Last edited:
This is why getting to left wing in your ideology always fails because stupid things like enforcing equality and fairness mean your end up with incompetents getting jobs ahead of those who are more capable. Plus you end up with authoritarians who are more interested in enforcing equality them getting the job done which ruins productivity.
 
Last edited:
That’s all far too sophisticated for my dinner time chats. The last argument I had at dinner was whether or not a bear could beat a tiger in a fight. I said a bear would crush a tiger and my brother disagreed. Almost turned quite nasty.
 
I wonder why you've arbitrarily decided to ensure there's equality of outcome in your 6 representatives based solely on gender and not any other trait, such as race, height, social class, political leaning, etc.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
You have 6 positions and in the hope of achieving equality, you base them with a priority to gender?

Gender should not come into it at all if it was real equality
Click to expand...

That doesn't really address the question being asked

The question being asked is; if you enforce equality (eg: quotas of certain groups, filling certain positions, etc) is it ok to allow individuals to be part of a group, if they merely identify as being part of it, in light of the fact that they don't posses any of the unique characteristics, that would automatically include them as being part of that group.

Roar87 said:
I wonder why you've arbitrarily decided to ensure there's equality of outcome in your 6 representatives based solely on gender and not any other trait, such as race, height, social class, political leaning, etc.
Click to expand...

I haven't arbitrarily decided anything, it's a question that was put to me.

And I think it's a highly relevant question, because you only have to look at the news and the workplace to see that society is changing by enforcing these sorts of groupings, many workplaces and systems (including political systems) have targets and objectives to enforce gender/sex balance, in terms of numbers and pay, within these systems complexities such as this scenario might and probably have arisen.

robfosters said:
That’s all far too sophisticated for my dinner time chats. The last argument I had at dinner was whether or not a bear could beat a tiger in a fight. I said a bear would crush a tiger and my brother disagreed. Almost turned quite nasty.
Click to expand...

Trust me, I'd prefer dinner with this sort of topic
 
Wait, how are you going to cover ethnic minorities, the disabled and non-binary representation in this scenario?
 
Well if you are just filling up quotas, then it is dependent on what quota you are filling. If you are having equal number of people that identify as each gender then its fine but if you are having equal number of people who are each sex.

If you are just filling a quota and equality does not come into it except to have equal numbers of, then it depends on how you define what you are having equal numbers of.

robfosters said:
whether or not a bear could beat a tiger in a fight. I said a bear would crush a tiger and my brother disagreed. Almost turned quite nasty.
Click to expand...

Use to have these sort of conversations all the time as a kid between mates!

A bear could beat a tiger in a fight but if you compare the bears and tigers that normally are in contact with each other in the wild, the tigers win most the bouts as i think it is reported that Siberian tigers have been known to prey on bear.
 
Last edited:
Ugh, you're doing this politics lark all wrong old bean, let's tear up the rule book and start from scratch shall we? We can set some proper selection criteria to make sure we only get the right kind of people.

1. Did you go to Eton with any of the candidates? If so they should at least be in line for a junior position, their upward trajectory increases if they have ever:
a) Played a game of wet biscuit with you
b) Captained the polo team
c) Witnessed you being intimate with a pig

2. Do they have any real world experience to bring to the table? Real world experience is very important as it tends to turn one's attention away from the important aspects of governing in ones own self interest. Ensure that any experience is completely irrelevant to the role on offer.

3. Do you owe anybody any favours due to back office funny handshake dealings? Sort them out, this is how the world goes around.

4. Are there any candidates who you trust implicitly? Move them as close to you as possible, it makes it easier to see the knife coming.

Generally speaking gender and sexuality are less important that the candidate being an absolute *****, though there should be bonus points on offer for anybody who has a proclivity towards weird sex stuff.
 
Last edited:
Screeeech said:
And I think it's a highly relevant question, because you only have to look at the news and the workplace to see that society is changing by enforcing these sorts of groupings, many workplaces and systems (including political systems) have targets and objectives to enforce gender/sex balance, in terms of numbers and pay, within these systems complexities such as this scenario might and probably have arisen.
Click to expand...

Just because the news is bleating on about it, it doesn't mean equality of outcome is at all desirable. Diversity targets and quotas are very bad for a lot of reasons. The target should be equality of opportunity and choosing the best candidates based on their merit and competency in a role and nothing more. It might be, for instance, that you could hire a man in one of your roles and he would do a better of looking after the interests of women than if you'd had a woman in that role, it also might mean that 5 women and 1 man might do a better job of running the country than your set quota of 3 men and 3 women simply because they are more experienced and competent at the role. What equality of outcome guarantees is that you aren't getting the best people for the job, as a result the organisation, whatever it is, will suffer.
 
in the interests of equality - 3x male and 3x female
Click to expand...

that's not equality, equality would be all 6 positions up for grabs by everyone and you pick the best fit for the role regardless of what the applicant is.
 
Roar87 said:
Just because the news is bleating on about it, it doesn't mean equality of outcome is at all desirable. Diversity targets and quotas are very bad for a lot of reasons. The target should be equality of opportunity and choosing the best candidates based on their merit and competency in a role and nothing more. It might be, for instance, that you could hire a man in one of your roles and he would do a better of looking after the interests of women than if you'd had a woman in that role, it also might mean that 5 women and 1 man might do a better job of running the country than your set quota of 3 men and 3 women simply because they are more experienced and competent at the role. What equality of outcome guarantees is that you aren't getting the best people for the job, as a result the organisation, whatever it is, will suffer.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree with you,

But what you've said doesn't address the specific scenario or question being asked.

Flubble said:
that's not equality, equality would be all 6 positions up for grabs by everyone and you pick the best fit for the role regardless of what the applicant is.
Click to expand...

Again I don't disagree, but that's not what's being asked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom