Just as it is phoney science to judge the role of women in Scotland by the success and power of a mere three politicians, so we cannot make general conclusions by pondering the gender of CEOs and the other 3,000 who live and work in the rarified strata above normal society (Revealed: scandal of women denied Scotland's top jobs, News, March 5). The important issue is the life experience of the majority and the extent to which women are disempowered because of their gender.
For large numbers of people, there is no more important life experience than parenthood; thousands of people – perhaps mainly men – have huge regrets about absenting themselves from their children in pursuance of their career. Full-time parenting can mean the opposite of disempowerment.
So let's have serious research to find out how many women are unsuccessful in job applications relative to men. When people apply for jobs, are female applicants with skill levels comparable to male applicants less successful? If the answer is "Yes", that would certainly merit a front-page headline and more.
A Hamilton
The growing clamour for gender quotas is understandable given the entrenched sexism and misogyny which women face in the workplace and at the ballot box (Do we need 50-50 quotas to close the gender gap?, State of the nation, March 5).
However, black, Muslim, gay and working-class people – to name just a few examples – are as heavily under-represented as women in positions of power and in public life. In fact, for some of these groups, their disempowerment is perhaps even more severe in certain areas. However, I have yet to hear any calls for similar quotas for these similarly oppressed demographics.
So my question for those who support gender quotas is simple: do you also support race, religion, sexuality and class quotas? And, if not, why not?
It seems to me that this evident reluctance to follow the case for gender quotas to its only logical conclusion – quotas for each and every oppressed or under-represented minority – exposes how unsound that case really is.
David Kelly.
Dunblane
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel