This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Australia has their first female Prime Minister, and people are celebrating. Should they be?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
About 27 hours ago, it was announced that our previous PM, Kevin Rudd, voluntarily stepped down in the face of a leadership challenge made by his former deputy, Julia Gillard. As the new PM, she becomes Australia's first female Prime Minister, which has led choruses of people to celebrate about how it's a major step to end sexual discrimination, and so forth.
(For those who aren't aware, in Australian politics, the country leader is determined by the party in power, so we don't vote a specific person in for a full term, though it's implied.)
So, a question was put forward by someone - why is there a need to celebrate? We've been moving on from the whole 'women are second class citizens' attitude since the 70s. Should we be celebrating the next male PM as a sign of 'equality'?
Or, alternatively, if it's really about ending sexual discrimination, why are so many reports still commenting about her hair?
Post by
Laihendi
This just shows that people still care what someone's gender is, which means gender discrimination still exists.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I think the real question is whether she was put into office
because
she was a woman. That would be the real case of discrimination.
Post by
Adamsm
We had a woman prime minister for a while up here in Canada; she replaced someone who was booted out of office... of course, she only lasted a few months then the elections came around again.... she didn't win lol.
Post by
Laihendi
I think the real question is whether she was put into office
because
she was a woman. That would be the real case of discrimination.
She was put into office because she was his deputy.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I think the real question is whether she was put into office
because
she was a woman. That would be the real case of discrimination.
She was put into office because she was his deputy.
(For those who aren't aware, in Australian politics, the country leader is determined by the party in power, so we don't vote a specific person in for a full term, though it's implied.)
Am I reading something wrong?
Post by
Heckler
Is your PM Head of State, Gov't, or both? (I think PM is usually Gov't)
There's quite a few data points which show (in America at least) that women still get paid significantly less to do the same job as men. We've definitely made progress toward gender equality, but clearly we're not there yet. I'm curious if you know off the top of your head the male to female percentage in your congress / parliament? Ours is nowhere near 50%, as you might expect in a society that didn't see gender.
Meh, I think it's probably worth celebrating, at least a little bit -- or at least, I don't see any harm in it.
Or, alternatively, if it's really about ending sexual discrimination, why are so many reports still commenting about her hair?
I'm going to assume that most of these comments were from women, that's how it usually happens here (Carly Fiorina vs. Barbara Boxer for a recent example).
Post by
Laihendi
About 27 hours ago, it was announced that our previous PM, Kevin Rudd, voluntarily stepped down in the face of a leadership challenge made by
his former deputy, Julia Gillard.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
About 27 hours ago, it was announced that our previous PM, Kevin Rudd, voluntarily stepped down in the face of a leadership challenge made by
his former deputy, Julia Gillard.
From what I can gather from what Squish said: She claimed he was incompetent, he stepped down, the party elected her. But I know nothing of Australian politics.
Post by
Squishalot
Head of Government. Australian Head of State is the Governer General, reporting to the Queen of England.
She was put into office because she was his deputy.
Actually, she was put into office because she (would have) won a party-room vote. The challenge could have come from anyone.
Am I reading something wrong?
...
From what I can gather from what Squish said: She claimed he was incompetent, he stepped down, the party elected her.
No, you're not reading something wrong. And that summary is moreorless correct.
We had a woman prime minister for a while up here in Canada; she replaced someone who was booted out of office... of course, she only lasted a few months then the elections came around again.... she didn't win lol.
I believe that's precisely what's going to happen here... unfortunately, because our primary opposition party doesn't have much in the way of things to write home about either.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
So yeah, then I'll stress my point again:
Electing someone because she is a woman is sexual discrimination.
Electing someone for their qualifications, and then seeing, ooh look, a woman, I guess they are as good as men....that is what would be done if there were no discrimination.
Post by
Dragoonman
This just shows that people still care what someone's gender is, which means gender discrimination still exists.
I think the media wants gender discrimination to exist.
I really don't think many people believe males can do better than females at everything/visa versa.
We are equal, its one of those "Just because the look different" things.
And i agree with hyper.
Post by
Squishalot
So yeah, then I'll stress my point again:
Electing someone because she is a woman is sexual discrimination.
Electing someone for their qualifications, and then seeing, ooh look, a woman, I guess they are as good as men....that is what would be done if there were no discrimination.
She's highly qualified in her own right. She's less a Sarah Palin, and more a Hillary Clinton, by reference to American politics. Realistically speaking, after the former PM, she is the most suitable candidate within her own party, and in that respect, deserved the previous deputy PM position, and therefore the current PM position.
The question is, should this really be a big deal? Why is there the 'ooh look, a woman' attitude?
Post by
Adamsm
Why is there the 'ooh look, a woman' attitude?Because Politics is the original 'No Girls Allowed' boys club.
Post by
Heckler
Why is there the 'ooh look, a woman' attitude?
Because if everything else were exactly the same (qualifications, etc) 50 years ago, people would have probably laughed at the notion of a female PM,
because
she was female. The simple fact that this didn't happen is reason to pat ourselves on the back, at least a little.
Post by
Laihendi
The question is, should this really be a big deal? Why is there the 'ooh look, a woman' attitude?
Because people still care what someone's gender is, because people are sexist.
Post by
Squishalot
The simple fact that this didn't happen is reason to pat ourselves on the back, at least a little.
And at what point do we stop patting ourselves on the back?
Post by
Laihendi
The simple fact that this didn't happen is reason to pat ourselves on the back, at least a little.
And at what point do we stop patting ourselves on the back?
Laihendi thinks people shouldn't be patting themselves on the back. And he just did some research and found out she was elected unopposed.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
So yeah, then I'll stress my point again:
Electing someone because she is a woman is sexual discrimination.
Electing someone for their qualifications, and then seeing, ooh look, a woman, I guess they are as good as men....that is what would be done if there were no discrimination.
She's highly qualified in her own right. She's less a Sarah Palin, and more a Hillary Clinton, by reference to American politics.
That analogy fails miserably on me lol :P
Qualified is the last thing I'd call Clinton.
Realistically speaking, after the former PM, she is the most suitable candidate within her own party, and in that respect, deserved the previous deputy PM position, and therefore the current PM position.
Sure, that's fine, but go back to Hillary Clinton. I know so many people who we're going to vote for her just because she's a woman. You ask them what the platforms of the different contenders were, and they'd have no clue.
I can't speak for the people in your government, but I wouldn't be surprised to find people like that.
The question is, should this really be a big deal? Why is there the 'ooh look, a woman' attitude?
There is nothing wrong with it after the fact. If people are being elected on qualifications, and you see the first ever woman elected, that's the normal response. It's the first "proof" that woman can earn the qualifications just as well as men. Anti-discrimination in practice.
Post by
Heckler
The simple fact that this didn't happen is reason to pat ourselves on the back, at least a little.
And at what point do we stop patting ourselves on the back?
In my opinion, once the data actually indicates that gender has little to do with position, prestige, pay, or anything else.
As I referenced above, this is clearly
not
the case right now.
Edit:
HSR's tone provides a bit of credence to this fact. Examples:
ooh look, a woman, I guess they are as good as men
"proof" that woman can earn the qualifications just as well as men
These comments would be insulting in a society that was beyond sexism (the surprise in comment one, or the
need
for proof in comment two).
I think HSR was just acting out how people would react, not necessarily stating his own views, but my point remains.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.