Compulsory Female Representation is Just More Sexism

Missy Bolt commits social suicide by arguing against women quotas.

When I read Lucy Howie’s article Why Are There No Female Politicians In St Andrews?, I was incredibly disappointed. Not only because I felt that – since I am a female – I was being roped into an argument in which my “side” was already confirmed as hers, but also because I knew that if any male students were to even attempt to debate Howie, they would automatically be disqualified on the basis of their gender by so many people. And that is so very wrong.

And so here I am, defending both men and women against this “new sexism” – the socially acceptable discrimination against men so long as women are profiting from it.

It’s something I have had a problem with for a long time.

I will start as most articles on the issue of gender equality do – with a definition of feminism. To me and most people, feminism is the equality of the sexes in terms of equal opportunities in the workforce and in education. Seems a fair enough definition, right?

So how come when I use this definition to support my argument that there should not be compulsory quotas for women in university committees, I receive so much backlash?

Equal opportunity between the genders means that both men and women vying for a spot on university committees are equally considered for the role, with the successful candidate being the one who – regardless of gender – is simply the most qualified for the role in terms of their values, character and skills.

On the other hand, equal representation of the genders is, ironically, more discrimination. To have a necessary quota for female representation on society committees would mean that sometimes a more qualified male student is not elected because of the need for more women on the committee. I’m not saying this will always be the case, but we must acknowledge the fact that to choose a lesser qualified female candidate over a more suitable male one on the basis of her gender – as this policy would not only permit, but condone – would only perpetuate more gender inequality, not solve it. Because this time, the discrimination would be aimed at men.

So which one – equal opportunity or equal representation – seems to you to be more just, more in alignment with classical feminism?

As someone who believes in the equality of opportunity between the genders, I know I would be absolutely humiliated if I was elected onto a societal committee to fill a female quota. How embarrassing to be awarded a position because I am a woman rather than my suitability as a legitimate candidate? And I’m not saying “embarrassing” because I am a woman who naturally feels inferior in the presence of more powerful men (as I am sure some would claim I do), but because I would rather lose an election because of my unsuitability to be a successful committee member than be elected because I am a “female committee member.”

Because I don’t want to be a ‘female committee member.’ I want to be a committee member. And I hope I am not the only one who feels this way.

Source: HBO’s Silicon Valley

Sexism does not prevent women from entering politics today, as I am sure it used to. And, I’m sure sexism did not stop a woman from becoming the “Women and Equalities Representative” for the Labour society. But I know that the sexism found within a necessary call for all committees to be comprised of 50% women will permit the exclusion of very qualified male students – male students who – shockingly – I think can represent the views of women as well as men, since I trust they would know what a woman is and what they may want from that society. You know, because they are probably decent human beings who have met a female before.

So call me sexist for disagreeing with Howie. Call me a fake feminist. But know this: If you truly believed in abolishing discrimination, gender inequality, and segregation, then you would not pit men against women. You would treat both like human beings and judge them for their characters, not their genders. For feminism is about everyone getting a ticket for the plane, not giving some priority boarding.

So for those who believe that there needs to be more women in our political societies at St Andrews, then by all means come join them. There is nothing stopping you.



188 thoughts on “Compulsory Female Representation is Just More Sexism

  1. Pingback: rome jobs
  2. game online tetap meyakinkan bahwa pengalaman berbasis keberuntungan yang mereka tawarkan juga menghibur. Mereka menghadirkan hiburan yang seru di dalam genggaman online bakal tetap menjadi pelopor didalam hiburan digital berbasis keberuntungan. Dengan rencana untuk tetap memperluas pilihan permainan dan menambah pengalaman pengguna, game online membawa tantangan dan hiburan ke dunia digital. Menghadapi era depan yang cerah, game online dan pengguna setianya akan tetap merayakan pengalaman hiburan berbasis keberuntungan yang unik ini.

  3. 프라그마틱 플레이의 슬롯 포트폴리오는 250개 이상의 게임으로 구성되어 있으며, 33개 언어와 다양한 화폐를 통해 전 세계 시장에 제공됩니다.
    프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트

    프라그마틱 슬롯에 대한 정보가 정말 유용했어요! 더불어, 제 사이트에서도 프라그마틱과 관련된 새로운 내용을 찾아보세요. 함께 지식을 나누면 좋겠어요!

  4. 프라그마틱 게임은 iGaming 분야에서 선도적인 콘텐츠 제공 업체로 꼽힙니다. 모바일 중심의 다양한 포트폴리오와 최상급 엔터테인먼트를 선보입니다.

    프라그마틱 슬롯에 대한 정보가 정말 유용했어요! 더불어, 제 사이트에서도 프라그마틱과 관련된 새로운 내용을 찾아보세요. 함께 지식을 나누면 좋겠어요!

  5. iGaming 분야에서 혁신적이고 표준화된 콘텐츠를 선보이는 최신 프라그마틱 게임은 슬롯, 라이브 카지노, 빙고 등 다양한 제품을 통해 엔터테인먼트를 즐길 수 있습니다.
    프라그마틱 게임

    프라그마틱은 항상 훌륭한 게임을 만들어냅니다. 이번에 새롭게 출시된 게임은 정말 기대되는데요!

  6. 프라그마틱 플레이의 슬롯 포트폴리오는 250개 이상의 게임으로 다양한 화폐와 33개 언어로 전 세계 시장에 제공됩니다.
    프라그마틱 게임

    프라그마틱에 대한 글 읽는 것이 정말 즐거웠어요! 또한, 제 사이트에서도 프라그마틱과 관련된 정보를 공유하고 있어요. 함께 발전하며 더 많은 지식을 얻어보세요!

  7. 세계 시장에 제공되는 다양한 테마의 슬롯을 포함한 250개 이상의 게임으로 구성된 프라그마틱 플레이의 슬롯 포트폴리오를 즐겨보세요.
    프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 체험

    프라그마틱에 대한 이 글 감사합니다. 더불어, 제 사이트에서도 프라그마틱과 관련된 유용한 정보를 찾아보세요. 서로 이야기 나누면 더 좋겠죠!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *