11 February 2012 7:06PMResponse to pdboxer, 10 February 2012 3:56AM
hey (in Danish:) @pdboxer
i am a bit tardy today, meant to catch up here last night but became engrossed in an imaginary life and death struggle by Christian Bale in the Cambodian jungle in a film Escape Dawn i think, just had to know if he made it out! Christian Bale seems to specialise in skinny starey eyed guys doesn’t he?
thank you very much for the advice on how to do a cool blue link. That does handily by-pass mentioning other newspaper’s names etc..
*When I saw the “Women quotas” episode I remember chuckling to myself thinking “God almighty. Ha ha I’m surprised Blair or Cameron weren’t at this” because they are what are known as “focus group politicians” as opposed to the “conviction politicians” of yesteryear, but really I thought not even they would pander in this way. I took on board what LarsPal said that just because it doesn’t seem feasible in UK, doesn’t mean its not feasible in Britain. And then I open the paper today… (BTW I speak as friend and relative of some very successful women who would not want their achievements devalued by people thinking they got their jobs due to “quotas”). I’m not against Women Quota’s per se, if the government wants to allocate me a quota of women, I say let them 🙂
exactly! in my new politics- is- interesting-though- i fear- this- is going- to become -somewhat all encompassing-hobby i read with pleasant cynical interest an editorial yesterday in my paper dissecting this very matter of spin. To summarise (which is not my strong point) they described Cameron playing this for his own ends and employing a very useful method which they named “exhortation”! which allowed him to sound concerned and reach out to women and others who believed in quotas without actually doing anything!
i’m not sure;i’m against positive discrimination in principle since it is actually against it’s own principle of not discriminating on the basis of gender or anything else?.
However, on reading this editorial i had to agree with the point that in the quoted ex. of boardrooms from which the members are only ever drawn from the same “pool” (an odd word about these days) perhaps they had a point:eg. possibly it could be useful to kickstart the process and get some women in to redress the balance-well not that it would be 50/50 but apparently Britain has only 15% women in boardrooms, much lower than any other European country..
but then one (or i) could argue that having women doing the job doesn’t necessarily change anything does it? are they supposed to be more caring and humanitarian?! and should they be there, as you say, just for being women? it is discrimination and ultimately reinforces discrimination doesn’t it? is that why they call it positive to make it sound better?
..is it all just about numbers then?
ha ha to your last bit:)
ps. i’m not a guardianista, i’m independent..