Second statement is true, but the first isn't. When employers hire people they do the same. We can't scientifically evaluate people for their competency at their jobs so the best way we can do that is to just rely on what they say and hope they're honest.
True (second statement) but imagine voters won't think voting for women would be a risk and just vote for qualified people regardless of gender. (Before the hate starts, some people do think that)
Srsly, if we just voted for the most qualified people to represent their district, then roughly half of them *would be* women, so, uh, pretty sure we don't do that yet.
Dude. In the modern environment, women are statistically more likely to be educated, and at a higher degree, than men. They also, as noted, skew towards fields heavier in the social sciences than in "STEM," aka math-heavy fields, which would put them in the majority in political roles and in related administrative roles. So, if we were just electing the "most qualified" representatives out there, the lowest levels of government - junior representation in state and local arenas, etc. - would be awash in women. But it's kinda not.
*Exactly.* The fact that the current face of junior politics is still so heavily male-skewed indicates one or more of these factors is excluding women. Maybe female candidates can't get initial campaign support (because there are so few women in politics, so why would parties/campaign orgs assume women can get elected?). Maybe political networks have trouble socially accepting women - after all, it's easier to assimilate a candidate who's "more relatable," and our culture creates some fundamental differences in the way men and women socialize. Maybe constituents still have trouble seeing a woman who knows what she's talking about as a "leader" instead of a "shrew." Maybe it's all of these things, or different combinations in different districts. But, as you yourself pointed out, it's *not* just who's qualified - or junior representation would be at least 50% female.
Or maybe more women either are not politically active or share the views that the voters want pushed.
The point I'm trying to make is that there is no sensible reason to expect elected politicians to be evenly distributed between any demographics, nor skewed one way or the other.
Gender should not be factored when considering who's qualified. If we refuse to accept that qualification has nothing to do with equal representation of race/gender/orientation or lack thereof, then idiocy like affirmative action will only ever get worse.
In my opinion: you know how (generalizing) women are good at being frenemies like in mean girls. Well, that is perfect for politics. Now, i think that for real issues we (again, in general) don't deal with the BS well. For example, I can be polite, borderline hypocrite to girls I don't like, but in a serious issues environment I am not taking any crap. And to some people still that ia viewed as "attitude" when it comes from a female. My husband is the opposite. In his personal life he doesn't want to deal with "frenemies" but can be "cool" with professional "crap"
I know men and women gender roles are mixed now but there is a generalization rooted biologically that makes us act a certain way. Not trying to make stereotypes.
Oh. I forgot. My point was that in my case for example I would go into politics to help people, but I would probably have a stroke or a heart attack because I wouldn't be able to just play cool when I realize just how dirty and disgusting it is
What if we recognized that platitudes about utopian decision-making will always be the answer of every politician who doesnt believe focusing on racism has to be part of fixing a for profit prison system.
This is what annoys me. Women make up most of all voters in America, they vote for men, and then get upset when there aren't women. Grow the fuck up. You're like that damn 4 year old who makes chocolate milk then gets upset because she wanted normal milk (My sister did that awhile ago).
The point I'm trying to make is that there is no sensible reason to expect elected politicians to be evenly distributed between any demographics, nor skewed one way or the other.
Gender should not be factored when considering who's qualified. If we refuse to accept that qualification has nothing to do with equal representation of race/gender/orientation or lack thereof, then idiocy like affirmative action will only ever get worse.
I know men and women gender roles are mixed now but there is a generalization rooted biologically that makes us act a certain way. Not trying to make stereotypes.