House of Lords Appointments Commission: tapping shoulders
The has been hitting the headlines by blocking some of Tony Blair's political nominations for peerages. But it also has the task of nominating non-party political members for the House of Lords.
And it has been having trouble locating what its secretariat describes as 'high-quality, appointable women nominees'. This is disclosed in a document I have obtained from the Commission under freedom of information .
This also shows that the secretariat dismissed the idea of trying to solve this problem through 'broad-based publicity to attract female nominees', because it thought this wouldn't attract high quality nominations.
So how should the Commission find top quality women for nomination to the House of Lords? The secretariat recommends 'a system of "shoulder-tapping" by Commission members.'
A 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
gender conflict has been a fundamental issue that emerged since time immemorial and now as the world is pledging for a more so-called "gender equal" society, we failed to comprehend the sitution that women are always women and men are always men. Using a superficial approach to comment, men are setting standards of the house of lords since it was formed. Now their lordships are seeking for "standard-fitting" ladies to sit in the house. But the fundamental part of the issue is "why should women fit the standards tat were determined by man in order to sit in the house?"
2 suggestion to handle the problem.
1.) Female are both naturely and nurturely different from man and so the house of lords should have an equal number of both gender which have distincted gender-based voices.
2.) Keep the centure old institution to be functional in the way it was designed to, which is to be dominated by man
As it has been for time immemorial, would it be that the standards of the house of lords which has been laid down during the earlier times be still followed today? you may question why would they have to fit in to allow the women that sits in must be in accordance to the rules laid down has been what is in the maxim of "stare decisis et non quieta movere" which has been the basis of the legal system..women may be women but there are analysis that they tend to depend on the emotions in the judgements more than how the male gender handle things which would be of greater importance in the decisions made...now that is one reason i would raise where males won't actually be making decisions based so much on their feelings but rational instead according to what is seen to be acceptable by way of logic.
as the solutions being suggested by our learned poster above,my thought would be that having women in the HOL would be changing how things have been since 'time immemorial' and that would not only tamper part of the system but to a great extent affect the reasoning made solely on how important the role of HOLs is.
with that, the 2nd option may be feasible, but it would have been the option left without any questions made to it if it was a perfect solution for it..
women may be women and man may be man...but is the balance achieved? and again due to the fact that they are striving for what is known as the equal rights between the genders, somehow its just striving for the impossible, what you have been will always be who you are and you can't change that fact...
its either they just fit in as the rules being laid out or they stay out...but if it ain't broken, why fix it?