Skip to main content

Equality: the natural method

This article was first published in the Times of Malta on Saturday 24th December 2011.


An article entitled Women want quotas (December 6), reported gender equality organisations asking Parliament to introduce quotas. I totally disagree with this and I'll explain why.

Quotas go against the very concept of meritocracy. Meritocracy means that whoever is the best suited for an appointment or responsibility, gets it, regardless of his gender, political beliefs, race or sexual orientation, but solely on his merits and competencies. Quotas, on the other hand, eliminate the "regardless of his gender" part. If for example, it happens that the best four candidates for a post are all men, why should they be balanced out by short-listing two men and two women? Likewise, if the best four candidates are women, why should two men replace two more capable women? This happened for example in Malta's nominations for ECHR judge. The Council of Europe ironically called this anti-democratic concept as the "democratic principle of gender balance". What's wrong  if the three most competent judges for the post were men? What would be wrong if the three most competent judges for the post were women? It seems the Council of Europe too is more inclined on balancing statistics than common sense.

Quotas are anti-democratic. If applied to Parliamentary elections, it would mean that male candidates who garner a certain number of votes would not be elected, to make way for female candidates who garner less votes. Does this not contravene the basic principle of democracy: respect to the will of the people? And where would quotas stop? Should we set quotas to balance out also homosexual candidates with heterosexual candidates? Should we balance out candidates who hold a degree with candidates who do not? Should we balance out candidates wearing glasses with those who do not? Should we balance out candidates according to their hair colour as well? Just for the sake of balance and statistical equality? You can already see this being implemented in the elections to the executive of Malta's two main political parties. On each election, valid male candidates who garner more votes than female candidates have to be left out for the sake of balancing women representation.

So why are there much less women in certain posts than man? There could be many contributing factors, pre-dominantly our cultural mentality which yes, must be changed and educated. But there may be other factors too. Right now, 60% of graduates are female. Was this the case up to twenty years ago? No. Right up till the eighties, only around 30% of graduates were female. It would be quite valid to assume that in the current pool of qualified people with reasonable work experience to expect certain posts, there are much more males than females. It therefore stands to reason that there will be more males in certain top posts than females. This trend is already being automatically reversed naturally, and in time, the pool of qualified people will balance out, moreover it will probably consist of more females than males. There's no need for quotas to force it now. It will come naturally, and through merit, not through discrimination.

As for quotas being termed with the oxymoron "positive discrimination", I believe there's no positivity in any form of discrimination. There's either discrimination or equal opportunities. I am all for women having equal opportunities for education and employment, as can be witnessed by the high percentage of female graduates. I am all for women having equal opportunities and rights in elections. That's why they can contest equally with men and on the same alphabetically ordered list. I am all for incentives to help mothers return to work, since they are the gender that can bear children.

But I am not for competent men to make way for less competent women, as much as I am not for competent women to make way for less competent men. Equality is to be sought in opportunities and their availability, not in the resulting statistical outcome. All the outcomes that follow are to be based only on meritocracy and competency, regardless of everything else, including gender, and regardless of statistics.

We are different unique humans, and not numbers.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Shema Yisrael, the cries of the Palestinian people

You live a peaceful life in a modest home. You've never bothered anyone and you've never caused trouble. Out of the blues, a group of people claim that they should live in your house. Why? Because they have been persecuted in a war, and they claim that some 5,000 years ago, their God had told them your home was their promised land. Somehow, the whole community agrees with their wishes, and asks you to grant them your spare-bedroom. You oblige. After a few months, they take the whole top-floor. In a few year's time, they take over your kitchen. After a few more years, they own your house and keep you and your family locked in the bathroom. They don't even allow you to get out, while they strip-search you the few times they do. Even if it's a medical emergency. Sometimes not even medical personnel and ambulances are allowed to see to your needs while your children die in your hands. Desperation starts hitting you. Life seems to offer no hopes. In moments

The Great Energy Proposal

I followed the example of a facebook comment uploaded on another blog to work out the savings my household will make with Labour's energy proposals. Our bill for of €717.80 for 7 months is divided into: An electricity service charge of €36.86 Electricity consumption of €404.83 A water service charge of €33.46 Water consumption of €242.65 Through the new tariff scheme, reducing the electricity consumption bill by 25% and the water consumption bill by 5%, our bill will read: An electricity service charge of €36.86 Electricity consumption of €303.62 A water service charge of €33.46 Water consumption of €230.52 A total of €604.46 for the same 7 months. A reduction of €16.20 a month. But this reduction comes at what price? This grand plan, the one we have been expecting for all these years, will materialize  if  we find a private investor ready to fork out €500 million in capital investment,  if  we reach a 10-year fixed price agreement,  if we manage to b

Why I am dropping out of the Anti-ACTA protest

Like many avid internet users, I have followed with interest the debate about ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement). After reading numerous articles, watched sensational videos, and discussed ad nauseam with friends, I have realized that what I have come across is a campaign hi-jacked by lies, myths and misconceptions as to rival Malta's misinformed divorce referendum campaign. I have to say that the videos on Youtube   got me worried. I quickly signed the petition, joined the Anti-ACTA groups, and prepared myself for a full-blown fight against the big-governments who want to intrude on our privacy and freedom of expression. Like our MEP Edward Scicluna invited us to do in the University debate last Wednesday, I did not try to understand the details of ACTA but rather saw who the players behind it were. But as usual, my logical instincts took over, and his call to not try to understand ACTA actually pushed me to read the text. And here's what I now know: ACTA is