View previous topic | View next topic

Ambition

Page 10 of 12
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

filofax
1315819.  Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:36 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
Do you think that not fulfilling your potential is succeeding then?


I think it's often irrelevant. Finding contentment and satisfaction is succeeding. I may have had the potential to become Prime Minister, but I found fulfilment elsewhere.
Perhaps the PM option also that the potential to make me very unhappy - a potential I would prefer not to fulfil.

 
barbados
1315830.  Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:32 am Reply with quote

Everyone has the potential to be PM, but most of us donít realise that because we have no desire, and that lack of desire removes any potential.
This is the same for everything- I for example have zero potential in become England Cricket captain for one reason only, I have no desire.

 
Alexander Howard
1315833.  Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:37 am Reply with quote

Everyone has a book inside him (or her), so they say. It's just that for most of us it should not be allowed to get out.

 
GuyBarry
1315837.  Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:52 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
Everyone has the potential to be PM, but most of us donít realise that because we have no desire, and that lack of desire removes any potential.


Didn't someone say that when John Major became PM? "Anyone can become Prime Minister. And he's just proved it."

 
dr.bob
1315841.  Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:11 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
Supporting and encouraging them in their schoolwork. After you leave school, you tend to look for support and encouragement from friends, family and colleagues, not former schoolteachers.


I thought we had already established that we're not considering what happens after a student leaves school. Why do you keep bringing it up?

GuyBarry wrote:
I now learn (via suze) that it's become a statutory duty of schools to provide careers advice without the provision of any funding to do so. I think that's scandalous. Schoolteachers have enough responsibilities of their own without being expected to become careers advisers as well.


I ask again, what support do you think a teacher should give to a student who expresses an ambition to become (say) Prime Minister if that teacher considers the possibility of such an achievement highly unlikely. I do hope you're not suggesting they simply say "I'd love to give you advice but, despite the government forcing teachers to provide careers advice, they provide no funding to do so, which is a scandalous situation, so I'm going to not give you any advice on a point of principal."

GuyBarry wrote:
She is undoubtedly one of the most successful women ever in US politics, and yet she's berated because she didn't get the "top job".


I certainly wouldn't berate Mrs Clinton for not becoming president. However, I was asking for role models for female students who wanted to become president. If they're shown the most successful woman ever in US politics and told that she lost to a man with precisely zero experience in politics who was the subject of several major scandals, then I don't think they'll see this as a great example of how women can aspire to the top job.

GuyBarry wrote:
Is getting the "top job" all it's about? Do you really want to instil the attitude amongst US citizens that if you don't become President, you're a failure?


Not at all. I simply asked you for a role model for a young woman who wants to become US President, and you pointed me at someone who failed to become US President. That doesn't seem an ideal choice for a role model in that particular regard. You could argue that Mrs Clinton is a good role model in other ways, but if a young woman is keen to be President, realising the best role model available is someone who failed to become President would be pretty disheartening.

GuyBarry wrote:
I think the way you're talking about her is disgraceful.


WTF?! In what way am I talking about her? You've complained on this very thread about people putting words in your mouth. What am I supposed to have said about Hillary Clinton?

GuyBarry wrote:
Quote:
GuyBarry wrote:
but it wasn't anything to do with anti-female prejudice.


This is an article bya psychologist who claims that a significant number of left-leaning US voters decided to vote for Trump on the basis of sexism.


Well, maybe they did.


So you're saying it was something to do with anti-female prejudice?

GuyBarry wrote:
So what do you expect candidates to do about it?


I have no idea, but that's not the point. I was merely responding to your unfounded allegation that Mrs Clinton's failure to become president "wasn't anything to do with anti-female prejudice."

GuyBarry wrote:
Quote:
Do you honestly believe that being of Pakistani descent will help Mr Javid to become leader of the Conservative party?


Possibly. As suze said, if the vote was just down to MPs then he'd be in a very good position - it's the membership that might hamper his chances.


But surely the MPs will have one eye on whether Mr Javid as leader would be able to win an election, and that would involve convincing the party membership to vote for him. If that won't happen, than the MPs will be reluctant to vote him in.

GuyBarry wrote:
Quote:
If being a woman helps you, please explain why only 32% of MPs are women.


Compared with the number of women who were MPs when I was a kid, that's huge.


That's irrelevant. I'll admit that representation of women has improved hugely, but it's still lagging behind that of men. If, as you claimed, being a woman "helps you" to become elected, then more women than men should be being elected as MPs. The fact that they're not shows your assertion to be incorrect.

GuyBarry wrote:
Quote:
If being an ethnic minority candidate helps you, please explain why only 8% of MPs come from ethnic minorities.


Because only 13% of the UK population is from ethnic minorities. The number of ethnic minority MPs hasn't hit 13% yet, but I'm sure it will soon.


But if, as you say, being from an ethnic minority "helps you" to become elected, then more than 13% of MPs should be elected from ethnic minorities. The fact that they're not shows your assertion to be incorrect.

GuyBarry wrote:
You seem to want everything sorted out by next Tuesday. It takes time for generations of prejudice to be overturned.


I perfectly understand that, just as I realise that there is still a lot of sexism and racism in society that needs dealing with. You were the one who claimed that being a woman or ethnic minority was an advantage. I'm merely pointing out that this is not the case.

 
Jenny
1315843.  Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:22 am Reply with quote

When somebody has an inbuilt advantage of which they are not totally conscious (e.g. being a straight white male for many centuries) and that advantage is reduced by increasing competition from people who are in some way different from that model, it feels as if something is being taken away rather than that the field is now more wide open. Hence the feeling GuyBarry expresses that being a woman or an ethnic minority is 'an advantage' when clearly as dr.bob points out it is not. Being straight, white and male still puts you at an advantage, but these days slightly less of one.

This is a very old (first appeared in 1989) but still hugely valid analysis of that: White privilege: unpacking the invisible knapsack.

 
AlmondFacialBar
1315846.  Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:30 am Reply with quote

Note, however, that the white heterosexual male is a social construct rather than reflective of a person's actual ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender. It extends the privilege quite a bit.

:-)

AlmondFacialBar

 
GuyBarry
1315848.  Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:34 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
GuyBarry wrote:
Supporting and encouraging them in their schoolwork. After you leave school, you tend to look for support and encouragement from friends, family and colleagues, not former schoolteachers.


I thought we had already established that we're not considering what happens after a student leaves school. Why do you keep bringing it up?


Because the time when you need support in your career is when you're actually involved in it, not while you're at school. You might want support with choosing a career while you're at school.

Quote:
I ask again, what support do you think a teacher should give to a student who expresses an ambition to become (say) Prime Minister if that teacher considers the possibility of such an achievement highly unlikely. I do hope you're not suggesting they simply say "I'd love to give you advice but, despite the government forcing teachers to provide careers advice, they provide no funding to do so, which is a scandalous situation, so I'm going to not give you any advice on a point of principal."


Not in so many words, no. But if I were a teacher I might suggest that they go and see a careers adviser. There's plenty of free advice and support for young people available from a variety of organizations. I've already mentioned the National Careers Service, and there are plenty of voluntary organizations as well. Some of them are listed here.

Teachers can only play a very limited role in giving careers advice. As suze said, they mostly don't have the experience, and they don't generally know where to point their students. The statutory responsibility to provide careers guidance falls on schools, not teachers. If, as in the case of suze's school, they can afford to employ a professional careers adviser, then I'd tell them to go and talk to her. Otherwise I'd rather point them in the direction of someone with all the relevant information than try to give advice that may be inaccurate or misleading.

I'll come back to the rest of your post in due course.

 
GuyBarry
1315853.  Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:36 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:

I certainly wouldn't berate Mrs Clinton for not becoming president. However, I was asking for role models for female students who wanted to become president. If they're shown the most successful woman ever in US politics and told that she lost to a man with precisely zero experience in politics who was the subject of several major scandals, then I don't think they'll see this as a great example of how women can aspire to the top job.


I think she's an absolutely superb example of how women can aspire to the top job. It wasn't lack of ambition that denied her the Presidency. It was coming up against the most disreputable git ever to have sought the office.

And that's politics, I'm afraid. We shall never know how she would have fared against a different Republican candidate, one who wasn't prepared to resort to the sort of dirty tricks that Trump used. She just had very bad luck.

As I said previously, politics isn't like other careers. You can be the best qualified candidate imaginable and still not get the job, simply because of electoral circumstances.

Quote:
GuyBarry wrote:
Is getting the "top job" all it's about? Do you really want to instil the attitude amongst US citizens that if you don't become President, you're a failure?


Not at all. I simply asked you for a role model for a young woman who wants to become US President, and you pointed me at someone who failed to become US President.


Well I clearly can't point you at a woman who became US President, because there isn't one. I suppose I could have pointed you at women who became leaders of other countries, of whom there are many - Angela Merkel, perhaps? Or even our own dear PM?

Quote:
GuyBarry wrote:
I think the way you're talking about her is disgraceful.


WTF?! In what way am I talking about her? You've complained on this very thread about people putting words in your mouth. What am I supposed to have said about Hillary Clinton?


I didn't think "you too can lose to a misogynist fruit-loop" was very complimentary. As I said before, she didn't get to pick her opponent.

Quote:
GuyBarry wrote:
Quote:
GuyBarry wrote:
but it wasn't anything to do with anti-female prejudice.


This is an article bya psychologist who claims that a significant number of left-leaning US voters decided to vote for Trump on the basis of sexism.


Well, maybe they did.


So you're saying it was something to do with anti-female prejudice?


Well, you just pointed me to an article saying it was. Did you want me to ignore it?

Quote:
I was merely responding to your unfounded allegation that Mrs Clinton's failure to become president "wasn't anything to do with anti-female prejudice."


I didn't see it that way. I would say that she lost to a large extent because of the underhand techniques that Trump and his team used to discredit her. But I'm sure there was a complex combination of factors.

Quote:
GuyBarry wrote:
Quote:
Do you honestly believe that being of Pakistani descent will help Mr Javid to become leader of the Conservative party?


Possibly. As suze said, if the vote was just down to MPs then he'd be in a very good position - it's the membership that might hamper his chances.


But surely the MPs will have one eye on whether Mr Javid as leader would be able to win an election, and that would involve convincing the party membership to vote for him. If that won't happen, than the MPs will be reluctant to vote him in.


That's not how Tory leadership elections work. MPs hold a series of ballots that gradually whittle the initial candidates down to two. The choice between the final two is then made by the entire party membership. So the two candidates that the party membership get to choose between are the ones who are most popular amongst MPs. The party membership aren't involved before that stage.

I would have thought that if Sajid Javid stood in any future Tory leadership election he'd have a strong chance of ending up in the final two, because the choice is made entirely by MPs. Whether he wins the final ballot amongst the membership is going to be largely down to who his opponent is, as I said previously. The membership tend to be a lot more right-wing than the Parliamentary party. If he comes up against someone like Amber Rudd he might very well make it.

Quote:
GuyBarry wrote:
Quote:
If being a woman helps you, please explain why only 32% of MPs are women.


Compared with the number of women who were MPs when I was a kid, that's huge.


That's irrelevant.


It's not irrelevant at all. How do you think the proportion of MPs who are female got to where it is?

Quote:
I'll admit that representation of women has improved hugely, but it's still lagging behind that of men. If, as you claimed, being a woman "helps you" to become elected, then more women than men should be being elected as MPs. The fact that they're not shows your assertion to be incorrect.


No it doesn't. You're starting from a baseline where a generation ago the number of women MPs was tiny. There's the incumbency factor to reckon with. We don't hold every general election with a brand new set of candidates who have never served in Parliament before. Most of the people who get elected are the same ones who held the seat previously, and they're going to be disproportionately male. That's why it takes such a long time to redress the gender imbalance.

I haven't seen any figures for the proportion of new MPs who are female, but my guess is it's likely to be a lot closer to 50% than the overall figure. As I mentioned, contrast the Welsh Assembly, which started from scratch in 1999 and had no inbuilt male bias. It's pretty close to 50-50.

Quote:
GuyBarry wrote:
Quote:
If being an ethnic minority candidate helps you, please explain why only 8% of MPs come from ethnic minorities.


Because only 13% of the UK population is from ethnic minorities. The number of ethnic minority MPs hasn't hit 13% yet, but I'm sure it will soon.


But if, as you say, being from an ethnic minority "helps you" to become elected, then more than 13% of MPs should be elected from ethnic minorities. The fact that they're not shows your assertion to be incorrect.


Same reasoning. The baseline figure for the number of ethnic minority MPs is tiny. Once the longer-serving white MPs start to leave Parliament, I'd expect to see more newcomers from the ethnic minorities elected.

Quote:
You were the one who claimed that being a woman or ethnic minority was an advantage. I'm merely pointing out that this is not the case.


Well it's certainly not a disadvantage any more.

 
dr.bob
1315854.  Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:43 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
Because the time when you need support in your career is when you're actually involved in it, not while you're at school.


But we're not talking about receiving support in your career. We're talking about ambition. By definition that starts before you start your career.

If (for instance) a young girl is constantly told "forget about becoming US President, because women never become President", then she won't even bother to ask a careers advisor about it because it will have been stomped out of her long before she reaches that point. That's why teachers play such a vital role in a child's development and why suze is right to offer her pupils all the encouragement she can.

GuyBarry wrote:
But if I were a teacher I might suggest that they go and see a careers adviser.


So if an 11-year-old muslim boy asked you if he could become PM one day, your response would be "don't ask me, go and talk to a careers advisor"?

 
barbados
1315856.  Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:51 am Reply with quote

Quote:
I think she's an absolutely superb example of how women can aspire to the top job. It wasn't lack of ambition that denied her the Presidency. It was coming up against the most disreputable git ever to have sought the office.

This is not strictly true. It didn't matter who she was up against.

 
GuyBarry
1315857.  Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:53 am Reply with quote

You can't know that and nor can anyone else. We can only speculate.

 
barbados
1315858.  Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:56 am Reply with quote

We can know that more people preferred her to Trump.

 
dr.bob
1315859.  Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:01 pm Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
I think she's an absolutely superb example of how women can aspire to the top job.


Good point. My bad. She's an excellent example of how women can aspire to the top job, she's just a really bad example of how women can achieve the top job.

GuyBarry wrote:
Well I clearly can't point you at a woman who became US President, because there isn't one.


Which is kind of my point.

GuyBarry wrote:
I didn't think "you too can lose to a misogynist fruit-loop" was very complimentary.


It wasn't very complimentary to Donald Trump (deliberately) but apart from that it was pretty factually accurate.

GuyBarry wrote:
Well, you just pointed me to an article saying it was. Did you want me to ignore it?


No. I'd prefer it if you explained why it was wrong, or provided some evidence to back up your claim that Clinton's failure to become president "wasn't anything to do with anti-female prejudice."

GuyBarry wrote:
I didn't see it that way.


Why not? Was that based on any actual evidence, or simply personal prejudice?

GuyBarry wrote:
That's not how Tory leadership elections work.
<snip>
So the two candidates that the party membership get to choose between are the ones who are most popular amongst MPs.


So you're trying to tell me that if the MPs were convinced that a candidate would perform very badly among the wider population in a general election, they'd vote him in anyway just because they think he's a damn fine chap?

GuyBarry wrote:
I haven't seen any figures for the proportion of new MPs who are female, but my guess is it's likely to be a lot closer to 50% than the overall figure.


Two things here:

1) You said that being a women gave them an advantage. That would surely imply that new MPs would be more than 50% female.

2) It's a shame you didn't check any figures for new MPs. Of the 93 MPs that were newly elected in the 2017 election, less than 40 were women.

GuyBarry wrote:
Same reasoning. The baseline figure for the number of ethnic minority MPs is tiny. Once the longer-serving white MPs start to leave Parliament, I'd expect to see more newcomers from the ethnic minorities elected.


11 out of the 93, or just under 12%. Better, but a little under the 13% you quoted above. I'd caution against getting too complacent about that number, though, given the small-number statistics involved.

GuyBarry wrote:
Well it's certainly not a disadvantage any more.


I'm amazed how you can believe that, particularly in the case of women.

 
suze
1315860.  Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:05 pm Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
I do hope you're not suggesting they simply say "I'd love to give you advice but, despite the government forcing teachers to provide careers advice, they provide no funding to do so, which is a scandalous situation, so I'm going to not give you any advice on a point of principal."


There absolutely are teachers who would say more or less that. They do not include me, but if a member of my team said that to a pupil I probably wouldn't be allowed to kick her arse for it. The industrial relations climate in schools is fragile, and ordering a teacher to do something that she doesn't think ought to be her job could lead to a complaint about bullying or even a strike ballot.


GuyBarry wrote:
I would have thought that if Sajid Javid stood in any future Tory leadership election he'd have a strong chance of ending up in the final two, because the choice is made entirely by MPs. Whether he wins the final ballot amongst the membership is going to be largely down to who his opponent is, as I said previously. The membership tend to be a lot more right-wing than the Parliamentary party. If he comes up against someone like Amber Rudd he might very well make it.


He might indeed, although Ms Rudd has shown her true blue "I'm stuck in the 1950s" credentials this week by referring to Diane Abbott as "coloured". But if Mr Javid's opponent were Jacob Rees-Mogg, JRM would win by a country mile. (Not that it ever would be Mr Rees-Mogg, because no MPs outside the ERG would ever vote for him.)

Not everyone in the Conservative Party thinks that having the membership elect the leader is a good thing, and there were calls to abandon the system after its first use led to Iain Duncan Smith.

The Labour Party has much the same issue, of course. If the Labour leader were chosen by MPs it would never have been Jeremy Corbyn - but the membership has chosen him by a huge margin, twice.

Just as the Conservative Party membership tends to the hard right, the Labour Party membership tends to the hard left. The same is not of course true of all who vote for one party or other, but the memberships seem not always to think about winning elections when they choose a leader.

Then again, Labour's membership is believed to be bigger than all the other parties put together, so maybe it does reflect the voters better than do other parties' memberships. The result of the 2017 general election certainly points in that direction, with Labour under Mr Corbyn doing massively better than some supposedly well-informed commentators had predicted.

 

Page 10 of 12
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group