Hacker News Reader

Comment by jdhn | Hacker News Reader

Why should I care? Does this mean that they'll make "better" decisions (better in quotes because better is subjective) than a predominantly male parliament?

View on HN

This event is not being regarded as notable because it is a goal in and of itself (to most people). It's notable because it has never happened before, was unthinkable in the not so recent past, and is a reflection on positive changes in society at large that now it is a thing that can happen.

Unthinkable in icelandic society or in your own? (I'm assuming you're not icelandic based on the odds)

I assume GP is talking the world in general, but it was indeed "unthinkable in the not so recent past" even for Iceland: for example, in 1975 (which I guess you'll agree as being "not-so-recent") there were only three women parliamentarians.

Here is the curve for Sweden, didn't look unthinkable in 1975 there, pretty stable increase since then:

https://www.scb.se/contentassets/e2d35a542c554e308ae8a11909c...

Politicians doesn't change overnight as barriers are removed. A man who entered the field in his 20's 1975 got retired just about now, that is how long it takes for change to fully propagate throughout society. So if 1975 was the year that it got equally acceptable for men and women to enter the field now is about the time you'd expect men and women to have equal seats in politics.

And that graph lacks the last election result, Sweden currently has 47% female parliament members, so about even by now.

Edit: Looks like USA is about where Sweden was 35 years ago on this. Reminds me how different cultures can be, and why the American gender discussions are so different from what I'm used to. So I guess USA might see a gender equal parliament in about 35-40 years.

Because not being represented by representatives of the same category (in kind of category: sex, race, social background, wealth...) in democracy diminish your chances that your rights will be defended.

If women aren't part of parliaments, we can't expect women's rights to advance significantly and all people (including men) would greatly benefit from this (better collaboration, more peaceful society).

Do you have any data to support this view?

I guess Western societies are quite decent defending and increasing the rights of underrepresented people, given that in the past century (or so), women got the vote, non-Westerners got citizenship (and therefore voting) rights, ...

It took a lot of pressure till those groups got those rights. And they wanted those voting rights so that they can push for stuff they want. Yes, dictatorships can be even worst in that regard, considering they oppress majority groups quite a lot too.

When you say “more peaceful society”, does that also apply if the woman in charge is Marine Le Pen?

Not if she's the only one in charge (i.e less representation of women in other democratic instance). Anyone can turn against their fellows, men and women

If a far-right woman is in charge, then the cabinet she selects is unlikely to consist of leftists.

It means you can stop caring about gender equality in Iceland, and start asking why your own country doesn't have the same.

And if your answer is "it's impossible", then you can care that Iceland is a counterexample.

It's not clear to me that an even split among genders in governance is an indicator of gender equality. Wouldn't it be more something like gender non-relevance for governance? If a trait doesn't matter for a given task, you would expect that trait to probably be proportional in the sample as it is in the population.

> If a trait doesn't matter for a given task, you would expect that trait to probably be proportional in the sample as it is in the population.

The whole point is that it doesn't.

Humans aren't rational machines; they're sexist, racist, bigoted etc.

This result may indicate a betterment on some of these fronts.

Wouldn't it indicate that we are even more sexist now, if the most important thing about the politician's is their sex?

Nobody is saying the most important thing about a politician is their sex. It's not suggested by any of the commentary here either, except the trolls like yourself.

I don't think this is a troll and an honest question that deserves asking.

If you did not cared, you would ignored the title and clicked elsewhere.

It is news, because it is outlier. Generally, parliaments these days have some women in them, but not nearly half. Except countries where there are no women in parliaments.

If this event is not meaningful to you, then don't care.

This event is meaningful to women.

If you don't possess the capacity for the empathy necessary to intuit why this is meaningful, then I don't think someone explaining it to you will make a difference.

This is not "meaningful to women", it is meaningful to all.

Given that your post got flagged, that you admit it's meaningful despite you asking why you should care, I can only conclude you were trolling.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com