Brenda Konkel's Gender Balance Resolution

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.
universitylad
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 6:36 pm
Contact:

Brenda Konkel's Gender Balance Resolution

Postby universitylad » Mon May 14, 2007 9:09 pm

The title of Brenda's Gender Balance Resolution seems gender neutral; however the body of the resolution is not. Isn't the main purpose of the resolution to try to achieve a more gender balanced city staff? Why does the resolution only mention women?

http://legistar.cityofmadison.com/Detai ... /?key=7444

I would propose changing the following :

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Common Council requests the Affirmative Action Commission and staff to make recommendations regarding the methodologies to ensure that women in top management positions are paid in an equitable manner and that women are recruited into the top paid positions in the City of Madison.


to:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Common Council requests the Affirmative Action Commission and staff to make recommendations regarding the methodologies to ensure that both women and men in top management positions are paid in an equitable manner and that bothwomen and men are recruited into the top paid positions in the City of Madison.

We should be recruiting both men and women.

Please write to the sponsors (Konkel, Cnare, Rhondes-Conway)of this resolution to encourage gender neutral wording.

Dulouz
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2919
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 9:01 pm
Contact:

Postby Dulouz » Mon May 14, 2007 9:35 pm

maybe you should stick to chatting about your favorite Hilldale stores. . . . .

Brenda Konkel
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2424
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:35 am
Contact:

Postby Brenda Konkel » Tue May 15, 2007 6:20 am

It probably would have been written differently if there were more than 5 women in the top 28 positions I looked at. Or if it wasn't the case that women are only 38% of the people appointed to committees.

universitylad
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 6:36 pm
Contact:

Postby universitylad » Tue May 15, 2007 6:36 am

Brenda Konkel wrote:It probably would have been written differently if there were more than 5 women in the top 28 positions I looked at. Or if it wasn't the case that women are only 38% of the people appointed to committees.


Even with your above statistics, what would preclude you from writing the portion of the resolution after BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED in gender neutral language? It should still have the same effect.

Brenda Konkel
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2424
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:35 am
Contact:

Postby Brenda Konkel » Tue May 15, 2007 7:46 am

universitylad wrote:Even with your above statistics, what would preclude you from writing the portion of the resolution after BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED in gender neutral language? It should still have the same effect.


Cuz the resolutions are intended to work on recruiting more women for these positions. I tend to say what I mean.

harrissimo
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2557
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 8:33 am
Location: Spaight Street on the Isthmus of Madison
Contact:

Postby harrissimo » Tue May 15, 2007 8:08 am

With all due respect, I think this resolution is a waste of time. The city should be trying to recruit the best person for a job notwithstanding an applicant's race, religion, political affliations, sexual orientation, or gender.

Speaking personally, I detest this type of resolution.
Unless there is overt descrimination, and I don't believe there is, resolutions like this are offensive.

Please spend your time working on real problems.

harrissimo
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2557
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 8:33 am
Location: Spaight Street on the Isthmus of Madison
Contact:

Postby harrissimo » Tue May 15, 2007 8:10 am

Dulouz wrote:maybe you should stick to chatting about your favorite Hilldale stores. . . . .


Maybe you should stick to trying to pull your over inflated head out of your fat ass.

<jackoff/>

gargantua
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6110
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Madison

Postby gargantua » Tue May 15, 2007 9:55 am

harrissimo wrote:With all due respect, I think this resolution is a waste of time. The city should be trying to recruit the best person for a job notwithstanding an applicant's race, religion, political affliations, sexual orientation, or gender.

Speaking personally, I detest this type of resolution.
Unless there is overt descrimination, and I don't believe there is, resolutions like this are offensive.

Please spend your time working on real problems.


All the resolution asks for is recommendations. I think there is a legitimate argument that such a low representation of women in top positions is a problem. Unless you think that women in this city aren't qualified for these positions, which doesn't seem logical to me. If the resolution mandated a number.....that would be a problem.

I don't know about overt discrimination Harris, but doesn't 5 out of 28 seem a little odd to you?

Mister_A_In_Madison
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1574
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:45 pm
Contact:

Postby Mister_A_In_Madison » Tue May 15, 2007 10:01 am

gargantua wrote:I don't know about overt discrimination Harris, but doesn't 5 out of 28 seem a little odd to you?


It certainly is out of whack, but how does it compare with women in Congress, in power positions in the corporate world, etc.?

A comparison to those numbers could prove interesting...

pulsewidth modulation
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2451
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 11:18 pm

Postby pulsewidth modulation » Tue May 15, 2007 10:19 am

Why aren't the social engineers and their fans worried about the ratio of women/men nurses at UW Hospital? I think PD should get on this right away; there is clearly a female gender bias at work here.

jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby jjoyce » Tue May 15, 2007 10:23 am

pulsewidth modulation wrote:Why aren't the social engineers and their fans worried about the ratio of women/men nurses at UW Hospital? I think PD should get on this right away; there is clearly a female gender bias at work here.


You've got a proposal sitting here that even some progressives oppose, and this is what you bring to the discussion?

Weak sauce.

anton
Forum Addict
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 7:48 pm
Contact:

Postby anton » Tue May 15, 2007 10:28 am

harrissimo wrote:With all due respect, I think this resolution is a waste of time. The city should be trying to recruit the best person for a job notwithstanding an applicant's race, religion, political affliations, sexual orientation, or gender.

Speaking personally, I detest this type of resolution.
Unless there is overt descrimination, and I don't believe there is, resolutions like this are offensive.

Please spend your time working on real problems.


I agree.

pulsewidth modulation
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2451
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 11:18 pm

Postby pulsewidth modulation » Tue May 15, 2007 10:40 am

jjoyce wrote:You've got a proposal sitting here that even some progressives oppose


That's nice.

How is the view of the giant white nipple from King St?

nevermore
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3833
Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 11:07 am
Contact:

Postby nevermore » Tue May 15, 2007 10:40 am

Dumbest. Reactionary. Thread. Ever.

Unbundle your boxers, boys. There's no reason to feel threatened by this resolution.

lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3371
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Tue May 15, 2007 10:40 am

gargantua wrote:All the resolution asks for is recommendations. I think there is a legitimate argument that such a low representation of women in top positions is a problem. Unless you think that women in this city aren't qualified for these positions, which doesn't seem logical to me. If the resolution mandated a number.....that would be a problem.

I don't know about overt discrimination Harris, but doesn't 5 out of 28 seem a little odd to you?


I think the question should be *why* are there so few women?

Are they not qualified?

Are they qualified but not applying?

Are they qualified, applying and getting passed on?

I would say 5 out of 28 is meaningless without knowing more.


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests