Sexism Sold As A Positive Thing
Turns out sexism is a good thing -- as long as you're sexist about the right people.
Joe Matthews writes at Zocalo -- rather unquestioningly -- that it should be "easy" to make the California Legislature 50 percent female.
Naturally, being a "progressive," he calls for this to be a legislative mandate:
The approach would be simple for voluntary government boards or commissions: a 50-50 mandate. For paid gigs that make appointees public employees, it might require more extensive legal changes that make explicit that gender parity conforms with our state's non-discrimination laws. Such mandates aren't entirely new; they fit comfortably within California's tradition of reserving certain seats on boards to serve certain constituencies, like the student representative on the University of California Board of Regents.But gender parity shouldn't stop merely with appointments. It should also apply to elected bodies. And here's the good news: the changes necessary to guarantee a 50-50 male-female split among electeds would make California more democratic in ways that go well beyond gender balance.
Never mind ability or accomplishment; gotta get some ladyparts in them seats.
The thing those calling for 50 percent female staffing don't get is that women favor work-life balance vastly more than men do, and often don't really care about advancement in the way men do.
This isn't all women. I wish I could have more hours in the week to work.
But prioritizing work-life balance is how many women women approach their careers -- as I note (and explain) in this column, "Romancing The Grindstone":
You and I are actually somewhat unusual as women who see a "healthy career-life balance" as a threatening crimp in the work that means so much to us. In fact, it turns out that there are some pretty strong sex differences in ambition. (Ladies, please put down the pitchforks!) This isn't to say women aren't ambitious. Plenty of women are; it's just that women, in general, more often want "normal" lives -- with, say, a job they enjoy but go home from before the owls start pouring each other nightcaps.There's a great deal of research that reflects this. In a 2015 study, economists Ghazala Azmat and Rosa Ferrer surveyed young lawyers on their level of ambition: "When asked to rate, on a scale from 1 to 10, their aspirations to become an equity partner in their firm, 60 percent of male lawyers answered with 8 or more, compared to only 32 percent of female lawyers."
However, there's an assumption that women should want to join the cutthroat race to the corner office. Psychologist Susan Pinker criticizes this as the "male standard" being forced on women. In her 2008 book, "The Sexual Paradox," Pinker points to countless studies that find that women tend to be more motivated by "intrinsic rewards" -- wanting to be happy more than they want to be on top. As an example, she profiles "Donna," who quit her prestigious job as a tenured professor in a computer science department for a lower-status job (tutoring faculty at another university) that allowed her more one-on-one engagement with people. Pinker explains, "Donna decided to opt for what was meaningful for her over status and money."
Like you, I don't want kids. (I describe them as "loud, sticky, and expensive.") However, Pinker notes that there's "plenty of evidence that many more women than men" -- including women at the top of their game -- put family before career advancement. She tracked down "Elaine," the author of an op-ed titled "My glass ceiling is self-imposed," about why she'd declined a promotion that would have put her third from the top in a company with 12,000-plus employees in more than 60 countries.
The president of the company was dumbfounded. But Elaine wrote that she was happily married, with children (and grandparents nearby). The promotion would have required relocating, and that would have destabilized her family. She concluded her piece with the observation that "many companies ... would like nothing more than to have more senior female executives, but not all females are willing to give up what it might take to get there."
So, why should a woman who isn't willing to put in the hours and effort a man is on the job get the same advancement and perks?
Isn't giving people promotions on the basis of their sex what feminists have been fighting against for, like, eons?
"Isn't giving people promotions on the basis of their sex what feminists have been fighting against...?"
No.
dee nile at April 17, 2019 6:05 AM
So Matthews buys into the theory that people of a certain identity group can only be represented by someone else of the same group. There's a bunch of problems here. One obviously is the micro-dividing problem; once you accept the principle, then you have to accept that drill-downs to any level are consistent with it, and eventually you hit the identity-group wall. If you are a half-black, half-Jewish disabled lesbian native of Fiji, where do you find someone qualified to represent you? And what about your neighbor, the gender-questioning half-Arab half-Latin Muslim who grew up in Russia? Even assuming you can find representatives, how many people do you have to cram into the legislature until everyone is represented by their own identity group?
Of course, the more fundamental problem is that the principle is wrong. In our form of representative government, legislators represent communities or geographic regions, and all of the people (of all identity groups) contained therein. A group made up of people who represent identity groups is not a legislature -- it's a tribal council. Such groups quickly break down into dividing up spoils, and squabbles over same. Throughout history, this has been the cause of most of humankind's wars.
Cousin Dave at April 17, 2019 6:56 AM
Isn't giving people promotions on the basis of their sex what feminists have been fighting against for, like, eons?
It's a catchy marketing slogan. Seems fair, middle of the road. But once power is gained, a) more is sought, and b) what has been gained is not voluntarily given up.
Related. Scroll down to the first graph, then to the right most column.
https://www.people-press.org/2019/04/15/sharp-rise-in-the-share-of-americans-saying-jews-face-discrimination/
I R A Darth Aggie at April 17, 2019 8:19 AM
How can you guarantee a 50/50 split among elected officials?
Are you going to tell men that they can run in certain elections?
You could, I suppose, require both parties to submit a male and female candidate. But even then, that would not guarantee a 50/50 split. Suppose more men win their elections?
Are we going to throw out election results if women don't win enough seats and just give it to the women?
Are we going to require both parties to alternate candidates on the basis of gender? Have them both submit women candidates one election cycle and men the next?
I'm really struggling to see exactly how we could guarantee a 50/50 split among our elected officials without trampling on the rights of men to run for office, or the electorate to vote as they wish and have their collective decision respected.
Patrick at April 17, 2019 8:26 AM
If voters don't provide the appropriate demographics then Matthews will appoint people for them. And after a few cycles where it doesn't matter who they pick, instead one of Matthews's friends does the actual picking, people will stop voting and Mathews can do away with all that pesky democracy getting in the way of his autocratic rule.
Ben at April 17, 2019 8:38 AM
You can't. Then again, this isn't about what the electorate wants. It's about what specific identity groups want; it's all about identity politics.
And you can bet that if the legislature were currently 60/40 women over men, the basis of the "unfairness" or "lack of diversity" complaint would be race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or some other artificial diversity standard which a small group can use to bully society at large.
Conan the Grammarian at April 17, 2019 9:30 AM
"It's about what specific identity groups want;" -- Conan
It's about what specific self-appointed identity group leaders want.
iowaan at April 17, 2019 10:15 AM
It's about what specific self-appointed identity group leaders want.
Money and power. These sorts should be kept as far away from both as possible.
I R A Darth Aggie at April 17, 2019 11:21 AM
Ah. I see.
Women are not as capable and competent as men, and can't do it on their own, so they have to be artificially supported with their "achievements."
Jay R at April 17, 2019 12:06 PM
The reality is that unless husbands step up and do 50% of their share, it can't happen.
The other reality is husbands can't breastfeed. So if someone is going to stay home six months or a year it's usually the woman. And even if she doesn't nurse it still takes 6 weeks to heal from childbirth. And depending on how it effects her, possibly 9 months of ill health, fatigue, etc. Husbands can't share any of that load. You can't be like, "OK honey, I had the morning sickness yesterday today it is your turn".
The other reality is that if one person has a soaring career, they may have to make moves and such for it which will make the other person's career flop a bit. The two-body problem in hiring is not easy.
It is true a lot of workplaces are built on the assumption that the worker has someone at home who will do childcare and all that.
I remember an example where the workplace required everyone to attend an after hours party, and would pay for a hotel room so people wouldn't have to drive home drunk, but not for childcare so someone could attend. In theory it was equal. In practice it disproportionately affected women. There IS an issue with males being considered the default human being, or at least the default worker (fair enough as they've been working outside the home longer and in larger numbers), so scaffolding to address their issues has been set up already. And we don't even think of it, because we think of male issues as applying to everyone and female issues as being female specific.
NicoleK at April 18, 2019 5:35 AM
"The reality is that unless husbands step up and do 50% of their share, it can't happen."
Define "50%" in this context. Is that 50% of everything? Or is it 50% of the household work plus 100% of the yard work plus 100% of the house and car maintenance and repairs plus 100% of handling household emergencies (being the person who gets out of bed at 2 AM to go up in the attic to address a roof leak) plus 100% of being the primary breadwinner plus 100% of being the parent who doles out punishments to the children?
Cousin Dave at April 18, 2019 6:28 AM
You are about 50 years out of date NicoleK.
Ben at April 18, 2019 7:31 AM
(Glad Nic is here, even when we disagree.)
Crid at April 18, 2019 5:05 PM
Leave a comment