18 months ago, the American Political Science Review published a 13-page-long paper by Rainbow Murray, Quotas for Men: Reframing Gender Quotas as a Means of Improving
Representation for All. The full Abstract:
Gender quotas traditionally focus on the underrepresentation of women. Conceiving of quotas in this perpetuates the status of men as the norm and women as the “other.” Women are subject to heavy scrutiny of their qualifications and competence, whereas men’s credentials go unchallenged. This article calls for a normative shift in the problem of overrepresentation, arguing that the quality of representation is negatively affected by having too large a group drawn from too narrow a talent pool. Curbing overrepresentation through ceiling quotas for men offers three core benefits. First, it promotes meritocracy by ensuring the proper scrutiny of politicians of both sexes. Second, it provides an impetus for improving the criteria used to select and evaluate politicians. Third, neutralizing the overly masculinized environment within parliaments might facilitate better substantive and symbolic representation of both men and women. All citizens would benefit from these measures to increase the quality of representation.
The Conclusion (p.11) ends with the following, which alone would have been sufficient for Dr Murray to win her Gormless Feminist of the Month award:
An important step in overcoming the pernicious effects of patriarchy is recognizing that its effects are detrimental to men as well as women, and mobilizing both sexes to seek the benefits that come from a more gender-equal society. The final benefit of quotas for men is that they offer a significant advance toward this goal.
It is a scandal that for decades British taxpayers have been funding legions of parasitic feminist ‘academics’ such as Dr Murray. I shall raise the issue at the next meeting of the Patriarchy Council (UK branch). I’m sure the Council will rule that these odious women are fired from their posts, and I look forward to Dr Murray being employed doing something more productive for society, e.g. stacking shelves at Poundland.
“Gender balance targets,,,” etc reads like a Politburo five year plan if ever I saw one.
And of course, they were rightly well known for their success and association with complete lack of mendacity or corruption.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/gender-balance-targets-set-scottish-university-subjects
Bizarrely arbitrary quotas for Scottish education. Plus point at least the otice men overall a minority at Uni.
Who would set the quota level, one wonders. Let me guess . . .
Simon Pegg, I think.
Or even dark satire as in your recent Minister of Transport skit with – I suspect – Roni Ancona as the pink jacketed Minister. To whom full marks for doing it I think.
But who was the train company
Rep?
Edit: Having clicked on ‘Post Comment’ I realise that of course there must be two criteria of merit, with a vagina of sole importance only where those having one lack ability or suitability of some other sort.
‘Curbing overrepresentation through ceiling quotas for men offers three core benefits. First, it promotes meritocracy … ‘
Only if the only criterion of merit is a vagina.
Or maybe ‘Mental Health Issues’?
File under ‘Fiction’.
What she is saying is that the existing biased quotas in favour of women are not biased enough and that men should be forced to not compete at all so that all of her special snowflake sisters won’t have to work so hard. They give her a paycheque for this shit? When will the insanity end?