phil(whoar.co.nz)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

he avoided any possible issues with his birth name by adopting the moniker rightwingdeathbeast..

could i suggest some similar green-themed non-gender-specific nomes de guerre be adopted by the wary..?..

who knows what hidden forces might be unleashed/uncovered by the adoption/nurture of an alter-ego…eh..?

(i did some time newsreading on bfm on wednesday breakfasts as my porn-star-name ‘bruce bellwood’..an aussie blow-in…(mon-tue and thurs-fri i read as me..tee hee..that silly bfm/havoc..)

it was quite strange..i would become bruce on wednesdays..(filling in the blank spaces in his life/bacground.)…

i stood differently when reading..held my head differently….different speech patterns and all..and soooo much fun……havoc and i would play with the bellwood personality..(formerly a highly esteemed aussie broadcaster…with a whiff of (unspoken)scandal following him from over over the ditch)

havoc would constantly throw me curve ball questions(as is his wont) on my/bruces’ past….)

’twas much fun..

i can highly recommmend an outing as a credible alternate personality…:)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Glaister assumption was that external imposed discipline, (rather than each individual’s internal self discipline) would be asked for, presumably by me, to “solve the problem” …
whereas my reason for doing the counting and then reporting on it, was to:

1. alert each contributor to a regular behaviour on this blog.
2. that this behaviour is noticed by others,
3. and that it is likely to be one of the reasons why female “would be” contributers don’t stay long!

I did this with the idea that each person would heed this, or not, as he chose …

eredwen

alastair:
Thanks for comments… I wish I could continue thinking about your interesting replies, but alas I have to get my mind back on my own work. Thanks again.

Indeed they are. The Greens are a democratic political party. This may sound like a tautology, but on the contrary, it’s an extremely rare thing. Most parties go through the motions of internal democracy, but actually practise “democratic centralism” à la Lenin/Stalin, where the summit of the pyramid dictates to the base. But it would be completely out of order to legislate on this subject. However S&M it may be, it’s done between consenting adults; and the independence of political parties is a vital intrinsic part of freedom and democracy.

“Should we understand the Greens to be suggesting by their internal arrangements that in their perfect world the law would be changed”

An interesting question.
I think that what the Greens’ internal arrangements suggest is that others should examine their internal arrangements to see whether they are fair and optimal. The fact that the co-leaders are co-ordinators, rather than commanders, is at least as important as gender balance, BUT it is less visible! That’s what I mean about exemplarity.

I have considerable, and painful, experience of zippers, in the French Greens (personally I actually prefer buttons, less threatening to my “gender identity”:)) I think that they are, in some cases, a necessary evil, in order to break a male stranglehold on decision-making positions.

In French law, zipper parity is obligatory in all list-based elections (municipal, regional, Senate etc). This has problems :
* the parties cheat in various ways
* it doesn’t apply to Parliament (single-member system, something like 15% women in parliament!)
but it is having an effect of massification of female participation in political life which is supposed to have a flow-on effect.

I think the single most important element in enabling the participation of women is proportional representation. Winning a nomination for a seat is pretty much always a knock’em down, drag’em out contest, may the best man win. Building a list is another matter : competitive, but also co-operative; and parties have no excuse if they choose not to present a reasonable number of women.

Buddha thinks all is just dandy in NZ because two of the last 20 Prime Ministers are women (the fact that they are the last two, as he will concede, is not statistically significant! :)) and because the GG is a woman (an appointed, powerless position, therefore ideal for tokenism). In spite of MMP, less than a third of MPs are women; yet there is no general problem of domination of the political cadre by men. Riiight.

In the context of NZ, I think zipper-type electoral constraints aren’t likely to give positive results. I think the best track is to adapt the mechanisms and practise of political life so that women may find them less distasteful and intimidating. This process will, in itself, improve governance.

I believe that this whole thread has provided an excellent example of why male and female co-positions are a good idea, even with the “given” that in general Greens (male and female) do tend to exhibit more androgynous (and inclusive) behaviour than the general population.

BJ: Listening to Baroness Susan Greenfield (talking to Linda Clark on National Radio this morning) I thought of your enthusiastic embracing of (”concrete”)male/female human brain differences as a reason that is “possibly somewhat overstated”.

Glaister: I wonder at your conclusion:
“(maybe zippered blogs if eredwen had her(?) way!)”
and how you came to that conclusion? .. and why you singled me out?

Rather than “zippering” this blog I would like to see it more inclusive! (and that means more “user friendly” than the recent tone has been.)

Maybe my comments on gender-different behaviour have offended you?

In five days I have said very little:
11:06pm 17/11 I stated my preference for co-leadership(15 lines).
8:24pm 18/11 I said why I supported co-leadership(23 lines).
1:06pm 19/11 I said “Well said”(1 line)
4:30pm 20/11 I ananlysed this thread by gender/frequency/volume(20 lines), because the tone of the blog had become “male competitive”…)
1:47pm 21/11 I answered Ornith in kind. (3 lines)
5:24pm 21/11 I answered bjchip in kind. (5 lines)

… now I have answered you (and anyone else who is up with the play on this thread!)

I have experienced quite an “off putting” atmosphere here, and yet it is a topic on which female as well as male input is vital.

Please all think about what has happened … and why …

eredwen

Ornith, if you are a guy, it wasn’t intentional.

As for the rest, I readily concede the nature of the contest. However, you are wrong to think us oblivious. I was learning something through that whole “debate” (to be rather charitable about what it was).

You are certainly welcome to hop in and add balance to the conversation, and doesn’t this whole thread rather seriously exemplify the REASON for wanting that balance?

I don’t think it applies to everything… but it may well be a good idea for leadership positions in mixed gender organizations.

respectfully
BJ