This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/25/unthinkable-quotas-men

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Unthinkable? Quotas for men Unthinkable? Quotas for men
(25 days later)
The prime minister David Cameron was widely criticised for trailing his cabinet makeover as a “reshuffle for women”, as if he were promoting people as a reward for their gender. As a result the women who were promoted were diminished in the popular imagination and the men who lost their jobs to make room for the newcomers felt wronged. This focus on the “need for women”, contends the Queen Mary University academic Rainbow Murray in the latest American Political Science Review, skews the whole conversation about representation. It means women are viewed collectively, rather than as individuals selected on merit. It also means they are judged on whether or not they “deserve” their place in a way that men aren’t. Yet the question is rarely posed the other way, asking why elite white men are so over-represented, thus reducing Westminster representation to a small subsection of society with overlapping talent sets. If the numbers game was played the other way round, with the focus on the grossly disproportionate number of men, then the way would be cleared for a much more proportionate representation of women and men, of every class and ethnicity. Variety not homogeneity would become the new normal. Women in particular would no longer be defined as “other”. And either men would be obliged to submit to the examination of irrelevant qualifications, or the scrutiny of body shape, dress sense and shopping habits might finally be abandoned. The prime minister David Cameron was widely criticised for trailing his cabinet makeover as a “reshuffle for women”, as if he were promoting people as a reward for their gender. As a result the women who were promoted were diminished in the popular imagination and the men who lost their jobs to make room for the newcomers felt wronged. This focus on the “need for women”, contends the Queen Mary University academic Rainbow Murray in the latest American Political Science Review, skews the whole conversation about representation. It means women are viewed collectively, rather than as individuals selected on merit. It also means they are judged on whether or not they “deserve” their place in a way that men aren’t. Yet the question is rarely posed the other way, asking why elite white men are so over-represented, thus reducing Westminster representation to a small subsection of society with overlapping talent sets. If the numbers game was played the other way round, with the focus on the grossly disproportionate number of men, then the way would be cleared for a much more proportionate representation of women and men, of every class and ethnicity. Variety not homogeneity would become the new normal. Women in particular would no longer be defined as “other”. And either men would be obliged to submit to the examination of irrelevant qualifications, or the scrutiny of body shape, dress sense and shopping habits might finally be abandoned.