Since the “Man Ban” was first issued by Labour—i.e., their proposal for a special quota to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in the Labour caucus—it’s been widely dismissed. But only by derision, not by pointing out why such quotas are wrong.
It only takes some slight paraphrasing from the original to explain why:
The notion of sexual quotas is so obviously an expression of sexism that no lengthy discussion is necessary. If a young man is barred from a school or a job because the quota for his particular sex has been filled, he is barred by reason of his sex. Telling him that those admitted are his “representatives,” is adding insult to injury. To demand such quotas in the name of fighting sexual discrimination, is an obscene mockery…
The quota doctrine assumes that all members of a given physiological group are identical and interchangeable—not merely in the eyes of other people, but in their own eyes and minds. Assuming a total merging of the self with the group, the doctrine holds that it makes no difference to a woman whether she or her “representative” is admitted to a school, gets a job, or makes a decision.
By this thinking then, it would make no difference whether you were to find Helen Clark or Margaret Thatcher in your cabinet.
Can we get advocates of the Man Ban to buy that proposition?
UPDATE 1: Ayn’s done her job. Man Ban redacted.
UPDATE 2: And the backlash begins…