Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
So you're saying that the fact that, for consistently almost ten years now, of accepted university freshmen well more than 60% have been women there's no need for a quota yet?
|
As I said in my last post I am
against quotas anyway, but no - simply because there's a 60/40 split in admissions doesn't justify quotas by themselves. They are generally justiifed where there is presumed to be a systematic bias against applicants (usually because those who are in control of a given field are indirectly or directly prejudiced). "Equality" in terms of exactly the same number of people of each gender working in a given field is not a goal of any sane person - it's that people have equal opportunity to work in a field if they so desire. If you could show systematic bias against men in university applications, I suspect you could challenge it in the courts, taking the issue to the EU if required.
But the number of people being admitted to university is not (by itself) evidence of anything at all. On one of the courses I did at University I was the only male - but that's because it was a language-esque course and girls flock to that sort of shit. In the engineering faculty of the same university, the courses were often without a single female (or so I'm told). Is this evidence of prejudice against women in engineering and males in language courses? Maybe, but it's impossible to tell just by looking at the numbers.
Quote:
|
If you say on left hand that PLCs need a 40% women quota (notice: 40%), shouldn't you, on the other hand, be saying that universities should have a 40% male quota?
|
No, that doesn't stand to reason at all. A target is supposed to redress some sort of systematic imbalance. A target we (where I work) have to aim for at is that approximately 18% of our allocations in certain areas should be to black/minority households. We don't have a converse policy that 82% should be to white families because there's no historical evidence of long term racial discrimination against whites. Quotas are generally an unpleasant solution to a problem, not something you introduce as soon as the numbers aren't exactly even.
In general, they're introduced when it's assumed an existing domination of one group makes equal entry by another group into a field difficult. So you mention that 60% of admissions are females. Is that matched up by other areas of public life? Well, the UN statistics (
http://w3.unece.org/pxweb/database/S...nddecision.asp) available say :
79% of University heads were male. (for 2002/03)
80% of what they term "chief editors" are male
62% of parliamentarians are males
53% of judges were male (for 2000, the last years stats were available)
73% of senior civil servants were male
So, despite what you say, females hardly to be massively dominating every aspect of Finnish life. If they were, if the majority of university heads, senior civil servants, parliamentaries, editors of newspapers, heads of companies, etc were female then a quota on university admissions might make sense (although I would add yet again, I would still oppose it on principle). But you're no way near that, and whining because you get bullied at school by the girls seems a bit lame.
If women are running your country (god knows how) or if there's a law you consider unfair, break it, protest it, campagin against it. Maybe all "hell will break loose" if you do, but so what?