You are mischaracterising me when you suggest that I think “women shouldn’t be represented equally in parliament – that it is ability that should come first, that women need to prove themselves worthy”. WOMEN don’t need to prove themselves worthy in the slightest – INDIVIDUALS do. Regardless of gender. There’s a lot of not-very-exceptional men and a lot of not-very-exceptional women out there in positions of power – Harman herself being a prime example.

I don’t believe that, in the modern world, gender makes much difference. There are a few dinosuars out there, but they are dying off. And now it is your very argument that is causing you to have to fight against “shit” every day, because you’re implying to those dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures that you DON@t believe you’re equal because you want separate shortlists. By doing that, you’re giving the Daily Hatemail ammo.

You, quite rightly, want equality NOW. But equality like that can’t be got NOW – it takes a little while. In a decade, no-one will bat an eyelid if a women becomes PM or a senior Cabinet minister. They won’t pay any more attention to her neckline or the length of her skirt than they do to a man’s tie or suit. But it won’t happen overnight, and by forcing the issue through the introduction of COMPULSORY “equality”, you conversely push REAL equality further away.

I am no troll – after all, you commented on my post first! – and I am more than willing to listen and re-evaluate my opinions. But you need to be willing to do so as well.

Men do, let me repeat this ABSOLUTELY DO get preferential treatment because of their gender. This is what patriarchy IS. And if you’re not willing to listen to me on that, try the UN: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/un-says-sexual-discrimination-is-rife-in-britain-915800.html

Female or BME or other exclusive shortlists are, as I have said, not a perfect, or the only solution to the massive problems with representation within the UK parliamentary system. But they are a viable option in the fast-tracking of change which is direly needed. The fact is that the system already discriminates in favour of men, now obviously if we could flick a switch and change the system then I’d glady go with that, but it is so ingrained in the institutions and mindsets of this country that we need other ways to fast-track a level playing field. All women short lists are characterised as somehow full of less-able people. This is simply not true.

You started by arguing that women shouldn’t be represented equally in parliament – that it is ability that should come first, that women need to prove themselves worthy. But this is simply not possible in a system that devalues and degrades the female voice, of course exceptional people break through, but there are an awful lot of not-very-exceptional men out there representing us in all positions of power, who are there because of the connections available and assumptions that are made of you if you are male.

Gender shouldn’t make a difference to selection. But it already does. In a society which characterises strength and leadership as male qualities, and women with these qualities as shrill and pushy, the only way to bring about real change is to put just as capable women into positions of power, to break the pattern, and to provide that ‘proof’ you so desire.

To patronise me with a ‘whiny child’ caricature, when what I have written uses (for the most part) reasonable language and a credible line of argument is not OK– angry it may be, but you try fighting this shit every day and not getting angry.

To suggest that I do not spend *every single day* trying to prove myself in every field that I attempt to excel in is out of order. My whole life is spent having to prove that I can handle myself, that I have a brain, that I’m good with tech, or that I’m politically engaged, or can hold an argument. And the point is that I shouldn’t have to do that, I should be accepted as an intelligent and reasonable human being until proven otherwise, like most white, middle class men are.

Let me iterate this a final time: to remove the white middle class male privilege of horrible over-representation in the political (or other) system, by allowing women to play an equal part in our political process is not inequality, it is selecting in favour of the opposite. Of course it’s discriminating against discrimination, that’s kind of what a positive action is – counter-acting a negative one.

I wish you well, and hope you are at least willing to listen. Any more attempts to patronise me, call me stupid or an idiot, will not be responded to.

Number two, discrimination is not an appropriate means to achieve equal representation in parliament.

Men don’t get positions based only on their gender – but I’m not arguing that it doesn’t help though or that it doesn’t need to be rectified. BUT two wrongs don’t make a right.

Gender should NOT make any difference to selection, and all your discriminatory selection process proposal does is formalise an already unfair process and extend its reach.

Rather than acting in a petulant manner “it’s not faaaaaaaaaaaair” manner, grow up and deal with it like an adult. Does your gender affect your abilities? No. Make people believe it by showing them.

I’m sorry, but you’re about as wrong as it is possible to be. Replacing an informal ‘privilege’ with a statutory one is not bringing about equality, it’s creating it.

Number two, to clarify: we need to use every means possible to get women, BME and non hetronormative people EQUAL REPRESENTATION in parliament.

You point may be that “neither women or men should get a position in power based only on their gender.” my point is that men demonstrably do, and that needs to be rectified.

Nor am I arguing for putting people in power solely because of their gender/race/sexuality/other – what do you think all female short lists do, go down to the local pub and pick 4 women at random? My argument asked not just for ‘top level’ change, but also grass roots work that changes the dynamic of both society and politics in order to make it equally accessible and relevant. Along with all female short listing and other drastic action to drive that change. That is not idiocy, sir, it is action.

If you’d care to re-read the final statement it answers your somewhat confusing dismissal. To reiterate: this is NOT removing privilege by creating privilege, IE more disadvantage, IT IS THE REMOVAL OF UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. Equality, nothing more, nothing less.

I think you’re just showing your complete and utter misunderstanding. My point is that neither women or men should get a position in power based only on their gender.

>>”It’s not elitist to say “I want to best people for the job to do the job”. But it is FUCKING SEXIST to assume that this precludes the equal involvement of women in government.”

Again, your lack of understanding is showing. It doesn’t preclude ‘equal representation’ of women in government, it doesn’t preclude women filling ALL major positions in government if they’re the right people to do it.

>>”I think all female and BME shortlists are necessary. I think that we need to use every means possible to get women and BME people into parliament.”

Then you’re an idiot. If the absolute stupidity of that statement is not obvious to you, then you must have the IQ of a pumpkin. Putting people into positions *only* because of their gender or race will, in the short term, increase the number of female/BME people “at the top” but in the long term destroy equality and create vested interests. Women/BME people who make it to the top will be seen as having done so *because* of that aspect, not because of their own abilities.

>>”I’m not asking you to apologise for your gender, nor for the privilege into which you were lucky to be born. But you should recognise that things are not OK and that while removing privilege can make people feel disadvantaged, it isn’t disadvantage, it’s the removal of unfair advantage, and it is necessary.”

Removing ‘privilege’ by creating other privileges? Yeah, you’ve thought that one through.