"Regardless of the votes their candidates receive, parties are required to give every third seat to a woman, according to a report this week from the International Crisis Group."
Wow, as if Iraq didn't need something else running it into the ground.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
At least they had the choice who to vote for...forcing every third seat to go to a woman is not democratic....expecially if someone else got more votes than them.
I think you guys are missing the point of forcing this on them.
However, I do see how this, to the definition and even down to the moral interpretation of a democratic electorate, is not pure democracy.
But do you guys see why something like this might actually be a better form of democratic republic? In such a heavily patriarchal society, fairly representing the population is likely to NOT occur for women.
I say, "You go girl!" and f*ck those a**hole male chauvinists. Have any of you had the chance to become cultured with any Arab culture? What about conservative Muslim's from the Arab world? Their culture is different. Of course, you guys can argue that who ever they elect is who they wanted and they shouldn't have a candidate shoved down their throat like that. I agree, only in definition. Yeah, that's right, we have a black president because we were forced to go to the same schools as each other, etc.
Thank you America for bringing democracy to the Iraqis peoples.
__________________ "The difficult task of knowing another soul is not for young gentlemen whose consciousness is chiefly made up of their own wishes."
George Eliot.
Yes but only because I don't see fascism as automatically evil.
If they want to play democracy there shouldn't be a policy to explicitly ignore people's votes (the electoral college in the US at least takes them into account). In fact this will probably set women back a few steps in Iraq because the ones that get into office this way probably won't be very good and will almost certainly be reviled by the people that were actually voted for as well as the people who's votes were rendered totally and arbitrarily meaningless.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
You're picking one point out of several reasons I gave that this is a terrible idea. And yes, they can be that bad, some of them will be that bad and because of this law it will be blamed on them being women rather than any actual flaws.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Not my fault you lack the ability to explore multiple perspectives.
Are you aware of the intentions of such a policy?
AHA! So this is where you're logic is flawed.
Here's a simple scenario for you. Common treatment of women sucks. Women lack a voice in government. Society and government are run by men. Therefore, women don't get a voice in government and society remains stagnant...even when pro-women men try to speak up because society "feels" more "comfortable" in the static.
Radical change comes to the land and government. Loud and clear, part of that change is echoed many times of the female oppression. Sensing that in a world overwhelmingly dominated by men, women still do not stand a chance at getting elected to office or even improving their hierarchical position, a way is paved for women to be forcefully elevated in status, if only in name. Sounds vaguely familiar to forcing whites and blacks to go to government run schools, doesn't it? Sounds similar to affirmative action, doesn't it?
Now, this is just one perspective into Arab women's plight. There are many such as "This is a pollution of what democracy really should be."
Great. Democracy would work wonderfully among a group of perfectly altruistic and intelligent/educated people, wouldn't it?
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
It wouldn't be. Though I do have the ability to explore multiple perspectives, but that doesn't mean that I think this form of "democracy" is better...
Yes.
I generally don't take the opinions of people that say silly things like that very seriously, but I guess I will see where you are going.
I jest of course, on both parts, but really, it should be "your".
No, it still does not. It's a different approach, with, presumably similar goals. Still has to be judged by its own merit.
I guess. Personally not a big fan of the dictatorship by the majority anyways.
You're being much too serious about my comment. Did my post need another smilie or another "lol"? I don't know what I could have done to make it less serious.
But if you want to take it this direction, no matter WHAT happens, they WILL be reviled. Anytime there is change, groaning, disdain, and other bullshit like it will be had. America still has some resistance racial residue from times past. I suspect that that same type of "residue" will remain in a more active voice far longer than it did here in America.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Feb 1st, 2009 at 10:00 PM
You certainly have not shown a very thorough understanding of this policy's existence, now have you? Behold, the reason for my comment. (Which, obviously was jest. Surely you're not THAT much of a dumbass?)
Ahhh. One of "those." Says the person who couldn't spell "exaggeration" correctly after many correct uses. For shame. For shame. At least I can blame mine on retardation.
Seriously, you truly lack the ability of insight. I take back what I said earlier about it being jest. You really do lack the ability to think from multiple perspectives. You're just as much of a closed minded conservative as the Arabs, aren't you?
KMC Community Forums
Feb 1st, 2009 12:21 AM
