Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ouyin2000 t1_itxxd75 wrote

Well, that's not fair.

−21

Most-Performer-5064 t1_itxxu65 wrote

Insert Anakin Padme meme Because of quality instead of equity, right? Right?

−26

dwwilson t1_ity066u wrote

Conveniently leave out the part where the 15% asian population of the country have 1% representation in government.

8

Supertrinko t1_ity0ijv wrote

Makes sense. NZ has more women than men, so that would be represented in Parliament.

83

Cycleguy57 t1_ity4l3g wrote

Narrator: “And things immediately began to get better”.

−36

OutlawCozyJails t1_itymajl wrote

When this happens around the world we will have a MUCH better, happier future. - 45 yr old man

−34

a0bb3 t1_itymizc wrote

Replying to ouyin2000 (#251,110)

You do realize that a perfect 50-50 is in practice impossible? For the one time that there are more women lawmakers than men, as is the case pretty much everywhere, you are going to complain?

0

armin_si t1_itypwsj wrote

Replying to dwwilson (#251,458)

Finally realizing that making quotas on visible traits of people is nonsense. Would also be funny to see the socioeconomic background of these wonderful women

19

letsreticulate t1_ityra9r wrote

Replying to dwwilson (#251,458)

Yeah, and why aren't babies and children represented in Goverment? They too make a % of the population. I mean, the article was about one thing but why not make it about completely another, amiright?

1

razor_eddie t1_ityu5rt wrote

Replying to dwwilson (#251,458)

It's actually 6.7%, but don't let that get in the way of your hate.

https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/library-research-papers/research-papers/the-2020-general-election-and-referendums-results-analysis-and-demographics-of-the-53rd-parliament/

"The 53rd Parliament has eight MPs who identify as being of Asian ethnicity, the same number as in the previous Parliament. Overall, MPs who identify as being of Asian ethnicity comprise 6.7% of the parliament, which is less than half the share (15.1%) of the population who identified as being of the Asian ethnic group in the 2018 census (15.1%)."

The nice thing is that, even though Asian representation remained static, and Maori representation dipped slightly to 25 MPs, the number of Pasifica MPs rose, and we got the first 2 MELAA (Middle Eastern/Latin American/African) MPs.

10% (a little over) LGBTQ+, but still far too many Gen X.

Cherry-picking only gives a tenth of the actual story.

2

razor_eddie t1_ityuggh wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#253,834)

Well, it's always interesting to follow what's going on in one of the freest nations on Earth.

The partial democracies will follow eventually. Who knows, the US might even have a female President this century.

−3

ssschilke t1_ityw02r wrote

We need a male quota immediately!!!

68

ginger_gcups t1_ityzybn wrote

I remember a McPhail and Gadsby sketch song that made fun of the gender imbalance in NZ Parliament back in the 80s, when there was a total of 8 women in there.

17

dissentrix t1_itz1x7v wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#255,132)

Wow, the sexism isn't even fuckin disguised at this point. Nice of you to outright come out and say:

"Women can't be good lawmakers, because all women lie, conceal truth, and act".

Your comment's logic is the exact same as if I were to say: "After learning about Bin Laden [who was a man]... it's well known how men can be violent terrorists... all the qualities of good lawmakers"

Thanks for the downvotes, you insecure little manlets - being downvoted by misogynist pricks is a badge of honor for me

−10

razor_eddie t1_itz2qyk wrote

Replying to armin_si (#255,228)

OK, but do you have the cultural referents to make sense of the information?

For example, is this person left or right wing?

"She has strong links to the Māori King Movement; her father was the adopted son of King Korokī and the elder brother of Māori Queen Te Atairangikaahu.[9] She is related to the Māori monarch, Kingi Tuheitia.[10] Her sister, is the co-chair of the Māori Health Authority.[11]"

Or this one?

"She grew up in Morrinsville and Murupara, where her father,worked as a police officer,[18] and her mother worked as a school catering assistant.[19][20] She was raised in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), and her uncle is a general authority in the church."

(They're both left-wingers. The first is the current NZ Minister for foreign affairs, and the second is the Prime Minister)

A lot of it goes with the party. A lot of Green MPs are ex community workers. A lot of Labour politicians are ex Government Employees.

For your private equity fund managers, look to the National Party.

−2

Bobby_feta t1_itz3lsi wrote

Replying to razor_eddie (#254,553)

Interestingly that actually aligns nearly perfectly with the Asian demographic % from 20 years ago. Since then the demographic has been increasing by about 50% each census, mostly through immigration. First gen migrants are significantly less likely to enter into politics for really obvious reasons, so actually it makes sense.

Not saying that more can’t be done of course, but yeah, this 1% vs 15% is misleading on both counts

9

fuzzy9691 t1_itz7pv5 wrote

I didn’t know ‘equality’ meant ‘more’.

I’m just shitstiring.

10

613codyrex t1_itz7uk3 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#255,280)

Well, not really?

Or at least the current troop has failed to?

As a man, Most of the men making these sorts of laws are unaware of basic female anatomy. They aren’t competent enough to make laws for the opposite gender. It’s frankly absurd that man would have equal say for what a woman should do with her body. The same goes for LGBT in terms of marriage and such, your neighbor shouldn’t have control over your personal relationships or decisions as long as it’s consensual.

Would you listen to a non mechanic on how to fix your car? Do you go to your non-doctor neighbor when it comes to medical ailments? Frankly no, or no one should. You don’t ask people who either don’t have formal or personal experience to provide valuable insight or experience as they have neither.

Ideally the whole abortion conversation should have been between women and their doctors only.

Would you be comfortable with a super majority of women government forcing men to have vasectomies or having to use a condom 24/7?

−8

Moonhunter7 t1_itzgfwm wrote

The sex ratio is 0.97 male/female (or 1.03 female/male), so 60 female to 59 male representatives seems right.

7

tinybluntneedle t1_itzti4v wrote

When the majority of a parliament is male nobody raises any questions or eyebrows. It is expected. It is normal. If it is a majority female then the entitlement rears up its ugly head. Such fragility.

Anyway, parliaments have no quotas you geniuses, they are voted in by people, cabinets can have quotas because they are unelected appointees by the government.

7

SeleucusNikator1 t1_iu042h5 wrote

Replying to dwwilson (#251,458)

NZ used to be a 80-90%+ white country (with the other 10%-20% being Polynesian) until very recently. The overwhelming majority of the Asian population immigrated in recent decades, and it takes a some time for families to establish themselves in a new country in order to have the luxury of pursuing politics as a career. When Italians and Irishmen started immigrating to the USA, it took decades for them to build up the social networks and capital in order to climb to the ranks of Governors, Mayors, etc. too.

3

Fogi999 t1_iu0cl5i wrote

why I don’t see an women outnumber men in construction, mines, fishing? oh right, those jobs don’t come with power

−1

Ivanthegorilla t1_iu0e9a0 wrote

sounds sexist, when achieving a goal of 1 sex dominance is an achievement

−8

Traditional_Oil1183 t1_iu0m722 wrote

I’m so tired of hearing about what gender or race those in charge are. Are they effective? Are they qualified? I do not care what gear they’re running below the belt.

5

Dragmire800 t1_iu0nxfe wrote

Replying to tinybluntneedle (#259,279)

If a patriarchy is something that has developed in every society since societies started existing, does that not imply a patriarchy is nature? Most social animals exist in a social system where one gender is dominant.

1

tinybluntneedle t1_iu0rm0p wrote

Replying to Dragmire800 (#263,534)

Not really. Plenty of societies were either egalitarian or downright matriarchal but with colonization and occupation from a select few, the culture changed. And that's not accounting for the abrahamic religions which spread with fundamentally misogynystic practices thus changing the societal balances for the last 2000 years.

You might think it is nature but in recent decades, with women getting into positions of power, it has been statistically proven that either companies, businesses and even governments and negotiations ran by women, are considerably more effective and economically fruitful than those run by men. We are weakened physically due to our reproductive features, and that's what the patriarchy exploited (and still does in some places today by erasing any form of reproductive health access) but that doesn't make a world ran exclusively by men the better alternative. And i'm not saying we need to run the entire world without men. Too much work when we already have to carry the weight of our civilization on our backs. Let's do this 50/50 where each pulls their weight.

−7

FredDagg2021 t1_iu1427m wrote

Replying to dwwilson (#251,458)

The National party and Labour party both had Chinese members one was an ex tutor at a Chinese spy school,,,and no Im not joking

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/national-mp-jian-yang-to-retire

The other was this guy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Huo

...and both left within days of each other

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/443477/labour-national-tight-lipped-on-former-kiwi-chinese-mps-departure

retirements followed intelligence briefings of both parties.

2

FredDagg2021 t1_iu15a5i wrote

The Irish have contributed significantly to New Zealand society and, today, around 20% of New Zealanders have Irish ancestry

1

Programmdude t1_iu1h27y wrote

Replying to tinybluntneedle (#259,374)

I don't think cabinets should have quotas either, it should be made up with meritocracy, not skin-colour-ocracy. Hopefully by having a fair representation in parliament, you also get appointed jobs having fair representation too without attempting to enforce it.

2

Avraham_Levy t1_iu1k1zm wrote

We need a quota to return back the balance

1

tinybluntneedle t1_iu1v7ms wrote

Replying to Programmdude (#267,747)

The purpose of quotas is to choose women between equally qualified candidates when there is a heavy bias towards men in a group of people. You may not like it, but it doesn't matter. That's the right thing to do because history has shown we cannot trust a fully male legislative body. And there are plenty of excellent women to fill those spots.

Also you cannot get fair representation without forcing it due to bias. This has been proven with experiments in the workplace, academia and even in blind analysis (aka when you don't know the gender of the applicant, that's because men and women build profiles and cvs differently and when men have to choose whom to hire, they tend to go for those profiles more similar to theirs - even though qualitatively there is essentially no difference).

We own half this planet, so we get half the say in organizing our society. That's it.

−1

Programmdude t1_iu20l6g wrote

Replying to tinybluntneedle (#270,039)

I'm fully for the government fully representing our diversity, I just want a better way for it to happen than forcing it. If males are in charge of the hiring process, then quotas are the lesser of two evils (forced representation is better than no representation at least).

However, in that case the "best" choice would be to ensure that there are more women in the hiring position, so managerial positions are more representative. If the hiring people are representative of the whole population, theoretically the hires would also be representative and be diverse without requiring quotas.

1

tinybluntneedle t1_iu21zjc wrote

Replying to Programmdude (#270,929)

Quotas are not forced. Quotas do not require you hire someone subpar. Quotas are a requirement to hire the female applicant when equal skillset are presented by male and female alike, in case of male over-representation.

As for your solution to only force quotas in the hiring department, this is nonsense because the hiring team is, a team. Decisions are made jointly, seniority matters, or are you suggesting we completely exclude men from hiring teams? /s Bias does not affect only men, bias affects women as well. Our perception of every job and profession not traditionally inhabited by women is severely biased by history and experience. Also, to go back to the initial topic, a cabinet, well, the people in charge are the one doing the hiring and even in cabinets there is no quotas by law, so the people in charge are hiring the women. You perceive women going into powerful positions as non-meritocratic and done out of pity yet you most likely have no clue what their cvs are like.

And furthermore, this kind of rhetoric assumes that an all male force is by default normal and meritocratic. And all female force, or mostly female force has no meritocracy in it, that it must be forced for women do not have similar or better qualifications. And this is essentially misogynysm. Everything male is default, everything female is not normal.

This is not a discussion in good faith because you are knowingly twisting the meaning and purpose of quotas.

−1

No_Hovercraft_9338 t1_iu2m2ln wrote

Replying to isawagoose (#253,845)

> but a 1-2% difference isn't very meaningful

1%-2% is the difference between a political party coming to power or not. Wasn't BRitexit "won" by a 2% majority? Id there are more voting women than men does this mean we live in matriarchy?

>especially when you factor in census marigns of error

What factors would these be?

1

razor_eddie t1_iu2rdu7 wrote

Replying to TheNakedMars (#274,816)

Lotta fragile egos in this thread.

I must admit, I'm looking forward to the first female US president.

If she's a Democrat, she'll have to be MASSIVELY overqualified, because of the sexist nature of conservatives (right of centre Democrats are conservatives, from my point of view. Bernie Sanders is only centre left).

If she's a Republican, it'll be a complete train wreck. Which will be fun to watch, if nothing else.

1

wam_bam_mam t1_iu335kz wrote

Replying to tinybluntneedle (#264,044)

> Not really. Plenty of societies were either egalitarian or downright matriarchal

Where the hell did you get this from, even in tribes the chief would be a male, they used to have oracles who used to be female.

All tubes always had a structure chief, soldiers, workers/artisans.

1

Teamnoq t1_iu343bi wrote

Headline- New Zealand has enough of Russia bullying Ukraine, bombs Russia.

1

Programmdude t1_iu753ou wrote

Replying to tinybluntneedle (#271,137)

It might be due to my misunderstanding of quotas, as they have not been common in anywhere I've worked. My understanding is mostly from reading online about US universities where they want X% of black students, X% of asian, etc. Therefore, when a student A applies with the exact same GPA (and extracurricular activities or whatever else they use to determine who gets into university) as student B, but student A is white and B is black, B will get in while A won't.

I'm assuming it works somewhat similar with hiring quotas, where they want roughly 50% female staff, so if there currently 40% male staff, then either they can't hire females, or they are strongly encouraged to hire more males (or vice versa if there are more male staff).

My solution wasn't to have quotas in the hiring staff at all, it was to have no quoatas anywhere. It also wasn't a solution, it was an ideal. My core argument is that if the hiring team is representative, then they will hire in such a way that you'll end up with representative workforce. That's because the bias' should cancel each other out. If men are biased to hire men, and women are biased to hire women, having 50% men and 50% women on a hiring team should result in 50% men and 50% women being hired.

1

tinybluntneedle t1_iu77ogn wrote

Replying to Programmdude (#302,985)

There are no laws for quotas in any country that force them on you. At most, there might be some lightweight directive that demand you try to fix extreme gender imbalances. Numerical quotas are not legalese. Companies define internally how they want to support gender and racial equality. Quotas also do not mean that you want everything to be 50/50 as a first milestone but try to infuse diversity in teams step by step. No company is going to force itself to continuously hire less qualified staff and harm their bottom line over a self imposed rule. Furthermore staffing is more complex than just how many years of experience one has. There are a lot of things that influence a decision. Even among 2 white male candidates, it is not necessarily that the one with the most work experience gets hired, sometime another candidate may have less experience overall but is fluent in a particular tech stack of interest, or maybe shows personality traits that make them more likeable and flexible in the eyes of their potential employer. As for your suggestion about hiring staff, bias affects men and women alike. Also even if you create a 50/50 hiring staff, male inherent bias and female learnt bias will still tilt the decision in a bad way. Bias needs decades to be unlearned.

In a perfect world we would not need quotas. We are far from a perfect world.

1