A Serious organizational question

A Serious organizational question
Taken from: reddit.com/r/ChapoTrapHouse/comments/cgo09f/a_quota_for_ciswomen/

A quota for ciswomen?

Attached: 9n8wjo18fs031.jpg (3024x4032, 1.27M)

Representative democracy is mostly liberal hokum. Quotas only make sense within this framework. Ideally, horizontalism within your organizational structure can make this a moot point, and where leadership positions exist they should be volunteeristic and based on the division of labor rather than real authority. The downside to volunteerism is, of course, that the more privileged members have more time and capital to volunteer and end up overrepresented, but this can and should be accounted for and ameliorated by direct democracy within the organization greatly overpowering any single member or small cadre of members in the day-to-day direction and governance of the organization.
Less abstract and more directly to the point, it does sound like some outreach needs to be done within your organization to attract cis women in particular. I'm not sure if quotas are going to be effective in doing this, but even if you decide to implement them they should be part of a broader effort rather than ending in tokenism (as quotas often do).

That seems reasonable enough. Actually the same method used in Rojava at all levels of government although I think the number is at least 40% women which gives a little leeway – you're probably not going to get that 50/50 split every time in every situation. Anyways, it's easier to do there because the whole population is mobilized anyways

Attached: rojava-decision.jpg (3810x2286 162.13 KB, 904.35K)

w*Sternoids get the bullet too

Attached: the-hunger-games-capitol-inspired-fashion_nvgcvy.jpeg (360x475, 70.08K)

Why do you go there?

Absolute sexist idpol trash. Why give one group of population unfair advantage to get position of power than other group based on what is in their pants? Are women incapable in competing with men on equal terms? Of course not.

Attached: 1433459299924.gif (300x300, 1.87M)

Quotas are fuckin stupid. Why should sex matter if you're good at what you do?
I always saw this as a way to sabotage your own org by accepting people based on something other than their ability to be a professional revolutionary.
If you don't base org recruitment on ability you're a tard.

Meritocracy ftw.

Quotas are fucking retarded and guarantee nothing of what they allegedly promise. If you need to address a certain issue and require certain "relevant" people to discuss it, create a committee in which those people hash it out and bring their solutions or analyses regarding the issue to the leadership and the organization. But don't sacrifice critical leadership positions for the possibility of maybe obtaining a different and well articulated viewpoint when that could be acquired in better and less assumptive manner.

The YPG does this and they're the most effective ground fighting force in their neck of the woods. Results seem to speak for themselves.

Women "hold up half the sky" as some weird Chinese guy said. Why not mandate that all socialist orgs strive for 50/50 male-female representation at all levels of governance? Only sensible. Trying to split off some other trans area seems to be overthinking it though IMO

Attached: ol-women.jpg (292x448, 25.98K)

Maybe it's because they're good at fighting and not just because they have quotas to fill?
If you can prove that having a woman quota somehow makes more sense then a system of recruitment based on ability maybe I'll be more open to the idea.

I had no idea this thread is about organizing third-world milita pushing to power female soliders.

This isn't a Call of Duty game where you win battles because of mad skil1s. The "good at fighting" part comes out of structural and political reasons – everyone is invested in the project and not just fighting for war booty or a paycheck.

Wait… it isn't? I might be in the wrong place. Let me check myself out

Go, LARPing as third-worldist is fucking disgusting.

I understand that war is more than cod skills but how has having a woman quota better than recruitment based on ability?

I would think the YPG would still be as effective as they are even if they didn't have a woman quota.

Yes, the fabled sexism within identity politics. Yo though, what's it like when your brain worms have burrowed so deep they've begun devouring their own tails?

This is always what I ask myself when organizing too. How can we make our organization more competitive, capitalist, and social Darwinist? Nothing really captures the spirit of class solidarity and cooperation than a popularity contest, after all.

Okay, now I'm having a fuckin laff
Literal myth.

Why do you assume quotas involve some sort of sacrifice? The hidden assumption here is that actually the groups that are being protected with the quota are less fit for the role. You're welcome to demonstrate how this isn't what you're assuming.

Ability to do what?

Speak publicly, organize discussion groups, understand theory and apply it to one's situation etc etc.

You know, communist party things.

Do you even understand these terms?
What the hell are you even talking about, retard?

I would argue that not most or even many members of an effective organization need to be able to do all or any of those things, and that specialization is both acceptable and desirable within the party structure.

It's like you want your organization infiltrated by CIA. Just say no to idpol.

I don't know, maybe you just weren't competitive enough in the free market of ideas to keep up sweaty

If party needs someone of specific skill to be in power, they can name that position and then hold contest or referendum to try to get the best person for the job. There is no need for sexist quotas.

Fucken far out dude

Attached: family-entertainment-a-c-a-b-karl-marx-and-friedrich-engels-lenin-19216563.png (500x725, 208.25K)

I have never seen anyone saying this IRL. Most shit Zig Forums meme.

I'm not incorrect though.
If you have a PR group, it shouldn't matter if it's 80% females or 15% females. All that should matter is that they do their job effectively.

Why is the democratic party appointment only legitimate and objective when couched in the language of "skills" and "merit" instead of recognizing the legitimacy of party democracy regardless of justification?
I'll contend that ethnicity and background can be as important, especially in outreach, as any nebulous qualification you might have such as clicking through powerpoints or reading off of a teleprompter with all the panache of someone incapable of self-criticism.

Then bring it up an an important aspect of organization.
What the fuck is so hard to understand about the idea of "the person most suited to do the job gets the job regardless of things that do not impact their ability do perform said job?"

The point that I've been hinting at here for a while, but I'll now make explicit, is that there are no objective jobs within the organization which are not themselves determined by the organization, and for each of those qualifications are also relative to the particular views and opinions of the organization members. There is no view from nowhere, but it bleeds through the screen which group you yourself hail from when you pretend that yours is that view.
This isn't a subjectivist view, but rather a properly intersubjectivist one. Pretending like you yourself can neatly divide both which jobs are necessary and which details are extraneous to those jobs is hubris. And if the job your organization settles on is first woman general secretary? You will cry foul, as if the legitimacy weren't based on the democratic process at all but rather on your own individual preconceptions of objective value.

Easy peasy. If the organization decides that gender equality is a priority, then if you have a chairperson you can have two chairpersons, one male and one female, and the organization's members vote on the most qualified for each. CPUSA recently switched to this structure (pictured, one of the two co-chairs).

Attached: cambron.jpg (606x341, 50.32K)

Well. with this kind of goal I can see that this organization has nothing to do with worker movement. I could understand if you brought that task such as "outreach to gypsy communities" needs gypsy leader, or task of assistance to pregnant women needs woman with kids as leader.

…then it's organization which should be located in middle east, or be viewed with great amount of skepticism.

Did they have a referendum on this? If so it shows that their org worth shit, the left party here in germany has that too and is consistenly loosing voter share since they are drowning in idpol to try to appeal to middle class college graduates who just vite green anyway. The woman leader is anaposematic liberal that literally gangs out with israeli politicians. Incidentally, mer non-feminist opponent was female too but they bullied her out.

Or rather the org is garbage regardless, but if there was a referendum it shows that their members are as well and it is not just an organizational problem

This is precisely what I'm trying to say.
If having a sex-based membership quotas somehow aids in furthering our goals, I'm all for it.

Then so be it. I shall vote on who should be first women gensec as is my duty as a party member. If someone doesn't adhere to democratic centralism then they shouldn't be in the party in the first place.

Having said that, I agree with .
It's retarded to have a quota for women just because.

I wouldn't worry about the to-and-fro of short-term election cycles. You start doing opportunistic and short-sighted things and lose sight of the bigger picture.

They are doing that though, the leadership shut down an an attempts to vote on solidarity with venezuela and a positioning against the eu, both of which serve "optics".

Oh well that's retarded

Into the trash it goes. Hire who's capable and able to do a job, not based in MUH REPRESENTATION

I want contrapoints to dominate me

This should go to the /gender and sexuality/ general thread.