"since in general we can see in parliament when more women are part of the discussions, less power fighting seems to happen, more bridges are trying to be build."
This means there are no italian women there. Not sure if this is a bless.
Anyhow, the very point is that your sex is not telling how good you are or not. Would be better to ask at least 50% of people to have a PhD, by example: at least it says they are goot in something. Useful or not, having a PhD is still an achievement. Having a vagina is not.
The risk is that sure, 50% of women in the parliament, and half of them are just having an affair with people in their parties. Not such a deal.
I suspect genitalia has a little to do with quality of politicians. Until you don't like Silvio Berlusconi, of course. Then, size of politicians matters.
Good point again. Indeed sex itself does not tell a lot about how someone is behaving. In general, both sexes have their own specific dominating characteristics. But this does not say anything for each individual. But in the end they all have to work together, somehow, and the group dynamics will start to play a role. A group of 150 people may not be the right size to apply statistics, but with lets say 50% of them being men and 50% being women, the collective of the whole group would be a mix of the generalities we know are dominant by men and dominant by women. PhD: well, that doesn't say a lot as well. I know quite a few people who are in their tunnel of expertise and are not able to be a generalist and therefore are not able to look across the board, and beyond their own tunnel. It would also be not so 'democratic' to set criteria, whether that be education level, behavioural criteria, ethnic background or even sex.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit