IR Debate No. 3: Legislative Quotas For Women

By

Legislative quotas will not help equailty and are undemocratic. 

I do not believe that legislative quotas are important for equality and development. 

First of all, men and women are created equal, but different. Thus, great care must be taken in discussions centered on gender. Men and women are both simply human, but they also have different roles. 

To begin with, legislative quotas exclude candidates based on sex, even if they are otherwise qualified. "Quotas are against the principle of equality for all, since women are given preference over men," (Dahlerup).  This does not help anyone, male or female. If one woman and three men in a district want to run for a Senate seat, a legislative quota automatically gives her an unfair advantage. Consider the values and thoughts of the individual. These are what matter, not his or her gender. 

Additionally, it is possible for leaders to represent their constituents well regardless of gender. A man can advocate for his female constituents' aims just as well as for his male constituents. However, this can go in the opposite, negative direction too. It is possible that a woman may not represent her fellow women's interests well. Gender discussion aside, any elected official's task is very difficult, and it is nearly impossible to please everyone. 

Lastly, legislative quotas disrespect females. "Many women do not want to get elected just because they are women," (Dahlerup). Giving women extra help reinforces the idea that women are less capable than men. Is it helpful for someone to have an advantage over other candidates merely because she is a woman? 

Overall, the cons of legislative quotas for women outweigh the benefits because they are undemocratic and unhelpful for equality. 



Sources:

Gender Quotas Databases, Institute For Democracy and Electoral Assistence (IDEA)

"Quotas: Pros and Cons," Drude Dahlerup, Stokholm University 

"Do Quotas Actually Help Women In Politics?" Madison Schramm, Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace, and Security (GIWPS)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Book Report: Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus

By
Image
An insane doctor in a stained, white lab coat stands before his worktable, on which is laid the gargantuan body of a hideous monster. He cackles madly as he pulls a lever down, and the grisly beast jolts and rises to stand on two green feet with bad toenails. The monster stares stupidly at the doctor for a moment, then utters three fateful words: "I. Kill. You." He beats the doctor over the head with a chair in less time than it takes to say, "unethical medical experimentation," and breaks a window to reach the outside world, where he will murder as many people as possible. This is not Mary Shelley’s story of Victor Frankenstein and his creature. There are three major differences between the modern stereotype and the original novel: the Creature’s appearance, nature, and the character of Victor.  Big. Green. Smelly. Not the Creature. Shelley never referred to him as green. He is probably grayish, if he isn’t a human skin tone, since he was crafted out of pillaged pi
Read more

Kiss That Power Goodbye

By
"In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a high school cheerleader could not be punished in school for using curse words on social media when commenting about not making the cheer team while she was off school grounds. Do you think students should be held to the same standard when exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of speech whether they’re on or off school property?"  My answer to this prompt: Public school speech restrictions are in place to protect innocent ears and inhibit conflict. They benefit schoolchildren. However, the favorable result of a policy is not the only factor to take into account when considering its expansion. Before all else, we ought to ask if the entity has the right to take this action.  In this case, the question pertains to the federal government and public school speech restrictions. Since 1979, when the U.S. Department of Education came into being, public schools have been government institutions. The government does not have the
Read more

IR Debate No. 5: Human Rights: A Hollow Promise To The World?

By
States make few efforts to promote and protect human rights. First and foremost, it is important to understand why human rights matter. Every man, woman, boy, and girl is created equal and bears the likeness of God. Fundamental human rights are endowed by God, not by government leaders. State human rights policies affirm that which is already true.  The freedom of expression, right to life, the right to work and get an education, and freedom from slavery and torture all fall under the human rights category. Being generally agreed upon as beneficial principles, these rights also contribute to international norms. Most states say that human rights are good and they are working on them, but they are inconsistent.  Inconsistency holds people and policies back. For example, the right to life is a human right and thus, in theory, it is supported by all democratic countries. However, abortion is still legal in 173 countries out of 195. Many of these nations restrict abortion, but that does no
Read more