Yeah that’s what I was getting at- assuming we accept that ability is what counts, how can we measure the relevant ability for people entering parliament (or anything that touches government)?

I’m sure that if we could do that properly then we’d have a far more representative parliament.

But how? :^|

And I never like bloggers who swear – because it’s cool. It really does nothing for society.

That’s a tricky one, and I’m afraid we’re actually up against a culture that thinks measuring people by ability is morally wrong, that ‘ability’ is something you’re born with (not true) and therefore it’s unfair to discriminate on the grounds of something people cannot help (true but the argument’s still false because ability is something that can be improved through practice).

She’s clearly quite a sexist person, unfortunately, and is offending a lot of men, some of them because they fear change but a lot because she doesn’t seem to give a damn about men.

The way you explained it, in terms of collectivism, is very clear.

I do think that we would be better off with more women in parliament but not for any ‘men can’t be trusted’ reasons.

We must be missing out on a lot of women who could do some great work in parliament.

However, we’re also missing out on a lot of great men, so for me the question is much broader than ‘we need more women’. Such an arbitrary measure, but obviously, much easier and more clear cut than fixing things.

Someone on the Guardian page that you mentioned described it as:

“You’re in a car with 4 people:

1 drunk man
1 drunk woman
1 sober man
1 sober woman

You don’t have a driving license. Do you:

a) demand that the sober people take turns to drive
b) demand that men and women spend equal amounts of time at the wheel”

(apologies to daddycoo1)

What I’m wondering is, if we want to take the first choice (same result, less likelihood of death), how can we get better at ‘breathalysing’ people?

Do you have any thoughts?

Until we’ve answered that question (and hopefully implemented it) we’ll never hear the end of the ‘superficial by-the-numbers equality’ brigade.

The nice little patronising bit at the end where I get called a ‘poor lamb’ is a particularly nice touch I though.

As a man, I’m not allowed to know whether this is a) batshit insane or b) at least partially correct. Thoughts, Charlotte?

I take the secular view that it is better not to say than to be caught on the hop half-way between two stools or be trapped on one.

In a democracy we depend on converting our opponents to our cause by argument, so it strikes me as perverse to try unify opponents against attack when we could be driving a wedge into them by showing a bit of love instead.

My point was in agreement with yours that the ‘collectivist’ argument is wrong, but on slightly different grounds. Paradoxically ‘collectivists’ aren’t wrong because they deny individualism, but because when we subject them to closer inspection they reaffirm it. The reverse is equally true.

Of course, if they do, then they’re more than welcome to have a go at me for using a straw collective as target practice. I’ll expect a 500 word essay on why you should treat people as individuals rather than members of collectives though.

There are hard generalisations that can be made about collectivists – things that apply to them all, such as the belief in organising people into groups and having representatives from those groups lead them in the best interest of the group as a whole. If one cannot even assume that much then ‘collectivist’ isn’t the word I’m looking for.

Of course knowing you you’ll have some notion of a moderate half-way between collectivism and individualism. Good luck with that

Stereotypes, hmmm.

As a great hairy ginger ape I obviously know nothing about men and women, so I can’t comment about the battle of the sexes, but I do wonder what HH’s special insight is which qualifies her opinon on this subject to be taken higher than anybody elses.