Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
SA rugby in trouble
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="j&#039;nuh" data-source="post: 743506" data-attributes="member: 55446"><p>People seem to believe equality is only about breaking down political barriers for disempowered groups. In reality, there are also cultural and economic barriers too.</p><p></p><p>In South Africa, the most cost-effective way of developing players is to tap into pre-existing cultural groups who already play the sport, predominantly targeting white people. Without an external pressure to change this, this is where SARU will concentrate their resources.</p><p></p><p>Consider the Rwandan government. Before 1994, no more than 10-15% of Parliament made up of females. They put a quota of at least 30% of Parliament to be made up of females by having certain seats only contested by women. However, the number of women winning elections in seats contested by both men and women has been going up over the years. In the latest election, in the seats contested by men and women, women won about half the seats. To go from 10-15% to 50% within 20 years is absolutely incredible. Between the 30% of women-only seats and the 34% won in male-female contested seats, 64% of Parliament is made up of females. The quota has clearly been quite successful in empowered female politics in Rwanda. Whilst the minutiae aren't directly comparable, I think it's clear that quotas can work, and the claim that "group X is not interested in it" is wide of the mark.</p><p></p><p>But the thing is, quotas have to be realistic and achievable to be successful. Which is why this is ridiculous. 30% by 2030 doesn't seem too unreasonable and gives SARU enough time to get things in order.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="j'nuh, post: 743506, member: 55446"] People seem to believe equality is only about breaking down political barriers for disempowered groups. In reality, there are also cultural and economic barriers too. In South Africa, the most cost-effective way of developing players is to tap into pre-existing cultural groups who already play the sport, predominantly targeting white people. Without an external pressure to change this, this is where SARU will concentrate their resources. Consider the Rwandan government. Before 1994, no more than 10-15% of Parliament made up of females. They put a quota of at least 30% of Parliament to be made up of females by having certain seats only contested by women. However, the number of women winning elections in seats contested by both men and women has been going up over the years. In the latest election, in the seats contested by men and women, women won about half the seats. To go from 10-15% to 50% within 20 years is absolutely incredible. Between the 30% of women-only seats and the 34% won in male-female contested seats, 64% of Parliament is made up of females. The quota has clearly been quite successful in empowered female politics in Rwanda. Whilst the minutiae aren't directly comparable, I think it's clear that quotas can work, and the claim that "group X is not interested in it" is wide of the mark. But the thing is, quotas have to be realistic and achievable to be successful. Which is why this is ridiculous. 30% by 2030 doesn't seem too unreasonable and gives SARU enough time to get things in order. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
SA rugby in trouble
Top