Helena Dalli
Women don’t want quotas
My, my, what a hornets’ nest the item on quotas turned out to be. Last Tuesday, The Times certainly caused a stir – albeit in the wrong direction – with the piece entitled Women Want Quotas. Undoubtedly, the categorical title was instrumental for the article going viral on the internet and becoming the butt of so many online comments.
Some remarks were incredibly primitive, others plain misogynistic. The tone of contempt with which this topic was “discussed” was appallingly symptomatic of this mindset. Incongruities and non sequiturs abounded.
Evidently, some of those who commented had simply read the heading, Women Want Quotas, and dashed to the keyboard, without bothering to read the content. You could feel the regressive, conservative establishment bearing down on you.
So, let’s start at the very beginning: Women don’t want quotas. Our society needs quotas and, sometimes, what we need isn’t always what we want but we must work for what we need nonetheless.
To say that women remain under-represented in politics and most of public life is simply a fact. In order to address this situation, our society – like any other modern society that wanted to shed its traditional patriarchal culture – needs to take temporary positive action. Look at the countries that have moved on and now have adequate participation rates of women at decision-making levels, see where they started from and how they got to where they are.
This has nothing to do with placing incompetent women in places where they do not deserve to be, as was implied in many of the online comments. We have enough women who are qualified, experienced and merit to be in decision-making positions. We just have to use this talent.
Now, if you want to call filling the posts on half a government board with capable women a quota, then call it a quota. There is though no quota for men and government boards are full of them. This measure will be in place until it becomes normal practice for those who appoint people, to select also from the vast pool of eligible women. That is why I told The Times that quotas are a necessary evil for the period of time necessary.
Be that as it may, the competence argument reminds of how, many years ago (precisely in 2004), Astrid Lulling – an MEP and a member on the EU committee for women’s rights – broached the quota issue with Lawrence Gonzi. The Prime Minister had said that he was not in favour of this kind of positive action since positions might be filled by women who are not fully qualified. To this, Ms Lulling had promptly replied: Since when has mediocrity barred men from occupying office?
She went on to say that if, by some mischance, incompetent women are appointed, they would surely not be enough to balance out the number of incompetent men who have been filling decision-making posts for centuries.
The Prime Minister is aware of this situation. When speaking with American Ambassador Molly Bordonaro, Dr Gonzi had voiced his concern on the dearth of talent around him and the difficulty he encountered when choosing his Cabinet and it was mostly men who were at his disposal.
This brings me to elective posts. The hackneyed argument that puts me to sleep was made over and over again last Tuesday: if women vote for women, then half the Parliament should be composed of women. Wrong. Women vote for women and men just like men vote for women and men.
The problem lies in the deficit when it comes to engaging women candidates. There has always been a disproportionately larger number of male candidates to female candidates. In proportion to the number of candidates, an equal number of women and men are elected. Thus, a much larger number of women candidates standing for election will improve the situation. We also know, though, that it is much harder to get women candidates than it is to get men to contest. Ask the political parties.
If there are no structures to support families where both parents are engaged in work outside the home, be it normal employment, voluntary work, politics, whatever, we will continue to lag behind other countries that are seriously trying to change the situation and are succeeding.
Unless there is also a critical mass of women in decision-making positions and a good representation of women in public life, we will continue to be Europe’s laggards. Many agree that this fact needs changing but, at the same time, resist the methods by which such change can be made to come about.
What we must all strive for is a better society: just and democratic, where the talents, experiences and qualifications of half the population are put to good use and not allowed go to waste.
If we can work this out without quotas, all the better. But we haven’t done it and look at where we are: at the bottom of the list with regard to women in Parliament; at the bottom of the list for women at decision-making level; at the bottom of the list when it comes to women’s employment. This, when we invest so much in women’s education and training, as should be done. Had this situation been in private business it would have closed down since we are getting very little or, at times, no return at all for our high investment.
It makes neither economic, nor social and not even political sense.
If we are happy with the situation as it is, then so be it. If the government thinks it is such a terrible risk to appoint capable and qualified women to its boardrooms, then it shouldn’t. It is only if we do not want to continue losing out on all the investment in women’s talents that we should take the positive action road. A road disliked by many but which has worked for others and should work for us.
Dr Dalli is shadow minister for the public service, government investments and gender equality.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
29 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Victor Laiviera
Dec 14th 2011, 21:44
I don't see any comments by Bertha Suillivan. Very probably, since this is not a "My side good - your side bad" article, she feels out of her depth.
Emma Xerri
Dec 12th 2011, 19:51
Many people do not understand the valid reasoning behind the quota system. It is neither undemocratic nor unfair. Rather, it is the best way to start to redress a grave injustice and break through the anti-woman social and cultural bias that exists in some countries, including Malta.
Or to put it in another way, do people actually believe that for the hundreds of years, men have held wealth, power and sway solely on their abilities and merits, or was it because they had contacts and inner connections to the 'old boys network' and access to education and other resources that women were denied? And during the centuries, how many ineffectual and even downright dangerous men were handed down power, wealth and privilege based on their gender? And even to this day, why is it that the best person for the job always happens to be a man?
Quotas for women only barely begin to correct this inbalance and effect a major cultural shift that is required to make a fairer world shaped by both masculine and feminine values.
Men have had a head-start for thousands of years and an unfair advantage because they were of the right gender - so what is so wrong about giving women a place at the table? Until both genders are equally represented in all facets and strata of society, it is unfair and hypocritical to talk of wanting only "people" according to abilities and merit, when the truth is that for hundreds of years the balance was shifted to favour one gender over the other.
David Seychell
Dec 13th 2011, 09:27
True, women suffered gender-based discrimination in the past centuries. But two wrongs don't make one right. You cannot expect today's males to suffer discrimination because this is the same injustice that the women of the past centuries suffered.
Victor Laiviera
Dec 15th 2011, 16:09
It's to redress the discrimination they are suffering today, not in past centuries.
David Seychell
Dec 15th 2011, 19:21
@ Victor Laiviera
"It's to redress the discrimination they are suffering today..."
Today's laws already prohibit gender-based discrimination. But if in practice it's still happening, it means that we need to enforce our current laws. It doesn't mean that to completely eliminate gender-based discrimination we need to introduce laws in favour of gender-based discrimination.
Emma Xerri
Dec 24th 2011, 19:58
@David Seychell et al
Despite gender equality laws, women still suffer from gender-based discrimination, covert discrimination both in the public and private sphere. Besides, quotas are a recognised way worldwide as the correct way forward to remove this institutionalised discrimination in the work place and in public life. And despite what many think, quotas for women do not discriminate against men. Since the population is made up of 50% man and 50% women, the quotas only ensure that posts, especially in mididle or higher levels, are filled by the correct balance i.e. one that reflects the balance of the population.
I do not see why men should see this as infringing on their rights,but rather they should see it as it is, righting a wrong that has gone on for far too long. And it is not a matter of 'two-wrongs not making a right' either as Mr. Seychell erroneously states, because quotas for women are necessary especially in such a traditional patriarcal society as Malta, that is if we truly want to effect a positive cultural change.
David Seychell
Dec 25th 2011, 13:48
Emma Xerri,
"Since the population is made up of 50% man and 50% women, the quotas only ensure that posts, especially in mididle or higher levels, are filled by the correct balance i.e. one that reflects the balance of the population."
I didn't knew that the aim of middle or higher level posts is that of being filled with people that constitute a good sample of the general population. But let us imagine you're right on this point. If you pro-positive-discrimination people really believe in such a theory, then you need to be consistent with your own principle, if you want to be credible. You would need to propose not only a system where there's a quota for females, but a system that has also a quota for homosexuals, Muslims, atheists, teenagers, pensioners, LP-oriented, PN-oriented, obese, introverts, extroverts and finally, dark skinned people. All these people have a different perspective, and if you want those posts to be filled with people that reflect the correct balance of the population you must include them in your quotas.
When you people would start to propose a fully comprehensive quota system like the one I described, you would start to be credible. Until then, your theory would continue to be seen as nothing more than a lousy excuse.
Sabrina Borda
Dec 12th 2011, 18:30
Well Said Dr Dalli.
Joseph Calleja
Dec 12th 2011, 17:21
Like you Ms Dalli, most of us do not think that there should be any quotas for men or women's accomplishments. Men and women should earn their keep the old fashion way and that is to fight for what they want. There is no quotas on government ( hypothetically) and yet you are a very accomplished politician, and yes, you did it the old fashion way, you earned it.. Women no longer need a man to find their way in politics or any other job. In last weeks article I named many women, you included, who found their own way, although I admit that some of the Maltese men population still seem to think they are the chosen ones and women are second class citizens, but again that is the minority.. Not so here. Don't let a few losers stop you or any other woman to accomplish your goal in life. You have come a long way and No women don't need quotas and neither do men for that matter. But when talking about politicking in Malta, it becomes a different story, since a lot of men are still archaic about a woman's place.
Victor Laiviera
Dec 15th 2011, 23:02
" although I admit that some of the Maltese men population still seem to think they are the chosen ones and women are second class citizens, but again that is the minority.."
You are joking or being sarcastic, aren't you?
G Borg
Dec 12th 2011, 16:46
@ David Seychell
I do not understand why Mr Seychell seem to get so hot under the collar.
Why is so difficult to understand that our society needs to make the best out of its investment in its people and that we are throwing away a lot of human resources by not having capable, qualified and experienced women participating in all levels of society? This, because we don't have the necessary structures for women to balance their familial with their work responsibities?
Why is it so hard to understand that our society needs to have women and men at decisision making positions, because since our society is made up of women and men it will be much better if we have both the female and male perspectives at these levels of decision-making?
If you want proof that our society needs quotas, there are many scientific studies which you can read which give proof that countries which introduced quotas in the 1970s are now in a position where they are making use of all the human resources their countries have invested in, and that is beneficial to any society.
How can we take you seriously Mr Seychell when you purposely misquote Dr Dalli and say : boards made up of women and men ' INSTEAD of of having a government board filled with the best candidates for that job irrespective of their gender'. Dr Dalli made it very clear that she is talking about the waste of resources, and that we have many qualified and capable women, whose experience and expertise is not being used. Now that is very far from saying appointing women just because they are women. She was very clear: capable, qualified and experienced women. Even though I agree with MEP Astrid Lulling who said ' Since when has mediocrity barred men from occupying office?' Just remembering the recent gaffes in public transport, triton fountain etc etc etc are good examples to start with.
Also the fact that 82% of primary school teachers are females is worrying because I am not aware of the reasons why males seem not to be interested any more in the teaching profession. I come from a generation where my teachers were mainly males.
And finally, to put my dear friend David's mind at rest, I am a 100% Male species married to a 100% Female species for quite a good number of years and let me assure you that good decisions are taken when both species participate. On a national level, I am sure females are not in favour of quotas subject that society give females a fair deal and be adequately supported in order to be able to fully participate in all economic, social and decision making sectors.
David Seychell
Dec 13th 2011, 10:15
"Why is so difficult to understand that our society needs to make the best out of its investment in its people and that we are throwing away a lot of human resources by not having capable, qualified and experienced women participating in all levels of society? This, because we don't have the necessary structures for women to balance their familial with their work responsibities?"
Do you really think that Negative discrimination against males would be a good structure for a woman to balance her familiar with her work responsibilities? It doesn't make sense at all. If a man (Peter) is not selected for a particular job just because of his gender, how is that going to help this woman (Jane) to balance her familiar work with her career? This could only make sense if the unemployed man (Peter) happen to be the husband of (Jane), and so Peter (now unemployed) stays home with the kids while Jane goes to work. But the end result for our economy is still the same: one employed and one not unemployed.
What our economy needs, is to increase the number of people employed, and we do that by creating more job opportunities. We do not do that by preventing a man from getting a job so as to give that job to a woman.
Maria Borg
Dec 13th 2011, 11:24
" But the end result for our economy is still the same: one employed and one not unemployed."
I guess you mean to say one employed and one unemployed there!
But you're right there. What's the point in robbing Peter to pay Jane?
David Seychell
Dec 14th 2011, 14:05
Mr Borg.
"How can we take you seriously Mr Seychell when you purposely misquote Dr Dalli...She was very clear: capable, qualified and experienced women."
Ok, let me rephrase it.
Prove that Society needs that half of a government board is filled with capable women INSTEAD of having a government board filled with the MOST capable persons for that job irrespective of their gender.
In the meantime, I'll tell you something, being qualified for a job is not enough to be selected for a particular post. Do you know why? Because Għal kull għadma hawn mitt kelb. For every vacancy ten qualified people apply but only the MOST qualified would get the job. If we want more women working, we need to first create more jobs in this country. That's the solution.
P.S.
Thanks for the correction Ms Maria Borg.
Stanley Vassallo
Dec 12th 2011, 15:57
Quotas are only useful for the persons that cannot make the grade and are not capable to perform.
I would be ashamed to be chosen to make up a quota and not because I am the best person for the job required.
Joseph Fava
Dec 12th 2011, 14:30
Dear James,
what we do care about is that our tax money is not wasted. Which is what happening when your understand the economic argument ( or am I asking too much ?) The government rightly invests heavily in women's education but the country is getting the return it should be getting from this investment. The reason is that our culture and structures hinder qualified, experienced and competent women from occupying more decison-making positions.
David Seychell
Dec 12th 2011, 15:45
@ Fava
Your economic argument does not hold water. You say that when a qualified woman does not get a job in a decision-making position because an even qualified male gets that job instead of her, our economy suffers because the skills of that women go wasted.
Using your same reasoning, when a qualified man would not get a job in a decision-making position because a woman would have got that job because of her gender, our economy would EQUALLY suffer because the skills of that man would go wasted.
Those in favour of gender-based discrimination against males have to come up with some logical arguments if they want to be taken seriously.
David Seychell
Dec 12th 2011, 19:10
Correction:
I meant to say a better qualified male and not "an even qualified male"
Anyways, my point was that if the skills of a qualified woman are wasted when a better qualified male is selected instead of her, then, (if quotas are introduced) it is the skills of the qualified man that would go wasted because a woman would be chosen instead of him because of her gender.
In a nutshell, if Society suffers when the skills of a woman go wasted, Society would equally suffer if the skills of a man go wasted.
Emma Xerri
Dec 24th 2011, 20:11
@David Seychell
All things being equal and there is only one post for the job, yes I believe that it should go to the woman. Reasn - society needs to get the femmine perspective. We have had untold hundreds of years of male-dominated societies which glory in war, competitivness at the expense of others and a winner takes all mentality. We need to temper this with more holistic values that women can bring to the table, that is if we want the world to be a much kinder and better place.
Maria Borg
Dec 12th 2011, 12:59
A person should be selected because it is the most suited for that job and not because of its private parts.
Joseph Calleja
Dec 12th 2011, 18:23
Not in Malta. If they picked persons most suited for the job, especially in Maltese Politics, we would have very few qualifiers. I happen to think that one third of our politicians are not qualified for the job, but there they are. Could it be that is part of the reason why we are in the shape we are in? Being a doctor, a lawyer does not mean you are the best qualified for the job, so why are 99% of our politicians doctors and lawyers?
Patrick Zammit
Dec 12th 2011, 12:54
Positions should be filled by those who are qualified for the job and not on the basis of their sex.
If less women want to join the work force and you consider that a problem, try to solve that problem.
j falzon
Dec 12th 2011, 12:45
I agree, women do not want quotas. They do not want to be treated as second-class citizens who cannot earn a position based on merit. Discrimination is discrimination regardless of who it benefits and who it disadvantages. I do not mind what colour, shape, sex, disability or size of the person. I just want the best one to be given the job. This is called equal rights. Now start doing some useful work rather than trying to make our institutions even less efficient by imposing draconian and unjust rules on the populace.
Carlos Espinal
Dec 12th 2011, 13:56
also include sexual orientation in that...
David Seychell
Dec 12th 2011, 12:33
82% of primary school teachers are females. This means that less than 1 out of every 5 teachers are males.
"Statistics published by MaltaToday last month had also shown that 81% of prospective teachers following a Bachelor in Education course were women. This could be an indication that the decline in the number of male teachers is set to continue in the next years as more male teachers retire and female graduates take their place."
http://archive.maltatoday.com.mt/2010/05/09/t7.html
So tell us Ms Dalli, are you bothered with this fact? Do you think we should introduce quotas in primary schools for males? And if yes, what were your proposals so far for the introduction of such quotas in primary schools? Or perhaps you only want quotas when it suits women?
Emma Xerri
Dec 24th 2011, 20:29
So what is your point? Or are trying to trivialise this issue by making this banal comparison, as if primary school teachers have some sway in policy making in this country.
Or in your esteemation, because there is on over-reprsentation of femal teachers at primary level, that this should some how balance out the lack of female representation everyhere else? Get real.
David Seychell
Dec 12th 2011, 12:22
"Now, if you want to call filling the posts on half a government board with capable women a quota, then call it a quota."
"Women don’t want quotas. Our society needs quotas"
Prove it, Ms Dalli.
Prove that Society needs that half of a government board is filled with women INSTEAD of having a government board filled with the best candidates for that job irrespective of their gender. Until you prove that, you cannot expect us to take you seriously.
Joseph Calleja
Dec 12th 2011, 17:45
Mr Seychell, I don't think that a government board filled with the best (and I emphasize Best ) candidates for that job is present in Malta. Far from it, where shall we start? Our government has always been dominated by mostly corrupt men politicians, up to a few years ago, that is why we find ourselves in the situation we are in today. The government needs men and women politicians to look out for the citizen instead of looking out for themselves and the party they represent. I for one do not care what gender or sex a politician is as long as he or she represents me and my country and not represent his or her personal interests.
James Dimech
Dec 12th 2011, 10:18
People do not care if women are getting the same number of positions as men or not. This is just a debate for time wasters like politicians. People just want someone to deliver a good job, whatever their sex. Our trusted family dentist is a woman. We trust her because she is a good dentist and because we have a positive experience of her work, not because of her sex. Frankly our dentist could also have been a man. Who cares!