Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Quotas for Female Politicians in Ireland

Options
12467…13

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    EMF2010 wrote: »
    I understand what you are saying here but my concern would be a step back from this. That is to say, are political parties even looking for/at potential female candidates? I think arguing that casting a wider net when looking for potential candidates could only be a good thing, for males and females.

    I think we need to define exactly what is meant by 'casting a wider net' here -- literally define what is meant by this phrase as it's an important one in this discussion. I am not sure I am comfortable with the notion of meddling with or enforcing on organisations how and where they source their potential members either in private business or in politics.

    Basically I am not sure this is all the fault of the parties. There is nothing to stop a pro-active, capable and involved person from joining a party, working their way up the old fashioned way through doorstepping on behalf of exsisting candidates and so on to eventually hold a more responsible position within the party and then after (after proving themselves over the long hours of hard graft) lobbying for the party to put them forward for a local seat.

    I am not so sure that all male politicans in Ireland today would have been chosen from these un named traditional 'anti-female sources' as referenced above.
    EMF2010 wrote: »
    Do I want to force parties to have an equal number of men and women? No. Would I like them to acknowledge that there is a gender imbalance and consider that their candidate selection practices might reinforce this? Yes.

    I would agree with that part above.


  • Options
    #93
    Ectoplasm
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭Ectoplasm


    Morlar wrote: »
    I think we need to define exactly what is meant by 'casting a wider net' here -- literally define what is meant by this phrase as it's an important one in this discussion. I am not sure I am comfortable with the notion of meddling with or enforcing on organisations how and where they source their potential members either in private business or in politics.

    Basically I am not sure this is all the fault of the parties. There is nothing to stop a pro-active, capable and involved person from joining a party, working their way up the old fashioned way through doorstepping on behalf of exsisting candidates and so on to eventually hold a more responsible position within the party and then after (after proving themselves over the long hours of hard graft) lobbying for the party to put them forward for a local seat.

    I am not so sure that all male politicans in Ireland today would have been chosen from these un named traditional 'anti-female sources' as referenced above.

    The points you make are fair. To give you an idea of what I'm getting at, a few years ago I was living in a somewhat rural area and had gotten involved in politics (in a very small way) on a very local level. In the run up to the local elections, a number of long standing council members were looking at retiring and their was a drive for newer candidates. In this case, established council members were speaking to different groups in the area to actively encourage people to consider running.

    The groups they spoke to were members of the local GAA, which was very male dominated, a local rugby club which didn't have a female team and Macra ne Feirme which does have female members but again a minority. Now this list isn't exhaustive but it struck me that they did not speak to the local school committees nor did they speak to the local country womens association, both of which would be more dominated by women (in this particular area). This is really what I personally mean by 'casting a wider net'.

    I don't believe that they were being deliberately sexist. I honestly think it just did not occur to them to look beyond where they had always looked. The male candidates that emerged were actively encouraged in getting involved and promised support and assistance to do so. A female candidate also emerged but she was a) underqualified and b) the wife of a former councillor.

    This is where I believe the problems may lie and maybe by taking a look at how all candidates (male and female) are 'brought in' to a particular party more people could be encouraged to be politically active.


  • Options
    #94
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    EMF2010 wrote: »
    The points you make are fair. To give you an idea of what I'm getting at, a few years ago I was living in a somewhat rural area and had gotten involved in politics (in a very small way) on a very local level. In the run up to the local elections, a number of long standing council members were looking at retiring and their was a drive for newer candidates. In this case, established council members were speaking to different groups in the area to actively encourage people to consider running.

    The groups they spoke to were members of the local GAA, which was very male dominated, a local rugby club which didn't have a female team and Macra ne Feirme which does have female members but again a minority. Now this list isn't exhaustive but it struck me that they did not speak to the local school committees nor did they speak to the local country womens association, both of which would be more dominated by women (in this particular area). This is really what I personally mean by 'casting a wider net'.

    I don't believe that they were being deliberately sexist. I honestly think it just did not occur to them to look beyond where they had always looked. The male candidates that emerged were actively encouraged in getting involved and promised support and assistance to do so. A female candidate also emerged but she was a) underqualified and b) the wife of a former councillor.

    This is where I believe the problems may lie and maybe by taking a look at how all candidates (male and female) are 'brought in' to a particular party more people could be encouraged to be politically active.

    Ok. Sure. Recruitment strategies could be encouraged to change. But the elections should not have quotas.

    I cant stand that Bacik.


  • Options
    #95
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    EI111 wrote: »
    Do we not have the same system though?

    pelosi=cowen
    mcalees= obama
    amacachi wrote: »
    Pretty much, people seem to forget the yank president wasn't supposed to have the kind of power they've had for the last 50/60 years.

    Ireland absolutely does not have the same system as the US. The US President is both the head of state and the head of government (although very distinct from the legislative branch). Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House, i.e. the leader of house protocol and legislative procedures selected by the majority party. The speaker is also third in line for the Presidency. The Senate is its own institution, and has real power, unlike in Ireland.

    Although election rules vary somewhat by state, in general for each position (Senator, Representative, President) there is a primary, where each party selects its candidate for the general election. In order to get on the ballot, candidates need to file the proper paperwork, and usually collect a certain number of signatures.

    I should also note that party bosses generally HATE the open primary system, because it means they may end up with a unknown candidate, or someone that they think may not win a general election. However, one could argue that primaries reflect the will of party voters (even though what they want may not be attractive to anyone outside of the base).


  • Options
    #96
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Morlar, I am not responding to any more of your posts. I have made my position clear - repeatedly - and you have chosen to ignore or completely misrepresent what I have said.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Morlar, I am not responding to any more of your posts. I have made my position clear - repeatedly - and you have chosen to ignore or completely misrepresent what I have said.

    I will leave it up to anyone taking the time to read this thread through from page 1- page 7 to decide for themselves which one of us is doing the misrepresenting.


  • Options
    #98
    Dangerous Man
    Registered Users Posts: 2,674 ✭✭✭Dangerous Man


    Morlar has not in any way mis-represented anybody. I've read this entire thread and have only seen him argue in a logical manner. The accusation of misrepresentation is unwarranted.

    Oh, and I'm against anti-democratic, sexists quotas also.


  • Options
    #99
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Morlar, I am not responding to any more of your posts. I have made my position clear - repeatedly - and you have chosen to ignore or completely misrepresent what I have said.
    Rubbish & as ill-concieved as gender descrimination.


  • Options
    #100
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Ireland absolutely does not have the same system as the US. The US President is both the head of state and the head of government (although very distinct from the legislative branch). Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House, i.e. the leader of house protocol and legislative procedures selected by the majority party. The speaker is also third in line for the Presidency. The Senate is its own institution, and has real power, unlike in Ireland.
    Aye but the power was originally intended to lie far more with the houses than with the president as it does now, that's all I was saying. :)
    Although election rules vary somewhat by state, in general for each position (Senator, Representative, President) there is a primary, where each party selects its candidate for the general election. In order to get on the ballot, candidates need to file the proper paperwork, and usually collect a certain number of signatures.

    I should also note that party bosses generally HATE the open primary system, because it means they may end up with a unknown candidate, or someone that they think may not win a general election. However, one could argue that primaries reflect the will of party voters (even though what they want may not be attractive to anyone outside of the base).

    Stephen Colbert is encouraging everyone to vote for Basil Marceaux in Tennessee (look him up :D) because the Republicans have an open primary. :pac: Only reason he's doing it is because he must know there's no-one in Tennessee watching him. :pac:


  • Options
    #101
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    amacachi wrote: »
    Aye but the power was originally intended to lie far more with the houses than with the president as it does now, that's all I was saying. :)

    Yes, I agree. The shift had been creeping up for years, but executive power grew significantly under the Bush administration, and I don't see Obama rolling it back much. But to be honest, I fault the feckless Congress for not protecting their prerogative more than I would blame Dick Cheney.
    amacachi wrote: »
    Stephen Colbert is encouraging everyone to vote for Basil Marceaux in Tennessee (look him up :D) because the Republicans have an open primary. :pac: Only reason he's doing it is because he must know there's no-one in Tennessee watching him. :pac:

    Basil Marceaux is a legend!!! Most primaries get their share of wack-a-doodle candidates, but he really takes the cake. What's scary is when they actually win: Sharron Angle in Nevada is one example, although she is nowhere near Marceaux for sheer craziness.

    Speaking of Colbert, he tried to run for President in South Carolina, and was blocked by Democratic party bosses. See, parties don't always make the right decision! :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    SerialComplaint
    Registered Users Posts: 2,644 ✭✭✭SerialComplaint


    maggy_thatcher wrote: »
    Political parties in Ireland do have open selection processes -- take for example the Labour party:


    They're closer to Caucuses than Primaries, but the same principle applies. It is certainly not the party leadership that decides who runs.

    I think you need a deeper understanding of what happens on the ground. In choosing the number of candidates and the members of the candidate selection board, the party head honchos effectively select the final candidate(s). They give a false impression of participation to the local branch members, but the choice has generally been made time before.


  • Options
    #103
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    maggy_thatcher wrote: »
    Political parties in Ireland do have open selection processes -- take for example the Labour party:


    They're closer to Caucuses than Primaries, but the same principle applies. It is certainly not the party leadership that decides who runs.
    SerialComplaint wrote: »
    I think you need a deeper understanding of what happens on the ground. In choosing the number of candidates and the members of the candidate selection board, the party head honchos effectively select the final candidate(s). They give a false impression of participation to the local branch members, but the choice has generally been made time before.

    I've heard informally that if Labour fields more than one candidate in a constituency that they will try to have gender balance for the ticket. Formally, according to their gender action plan on their website, they have an internal goal of fielding 50% female candidates by 2013. Since Gilmore wants to field candidates in every constituency in the next general election, it will be interesting to see who they run, and where they pulled their candidates from.

    It's interesting that Labour is pushing for quota systems for everyone else, even though it's something that they are already doing internally. It seemed to work pretty well for them in the local elections, and they have a lot of women in the pipeline who will be able to contest for the Dail (now and in the foreseeable future) so I don't get why they want to force the other parties to copy their model.


  • Options
    #104
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    It's interesting that Labour is pushing for quota systems for everyone else, even though it's something that they are already doing internally. It seemed to work pretty well for them in the local elections, and they have a lot of women in the pipeline who will be able to contest for the Dail (now and in the foreseeable future) so I don't get why they want to force the other parties to copy their model.

    Not all of the Labour Party wants to - Joanna Tuffy TD in today's (06/08/10) Irish Times:

    I oppose gender quotas because I believe they are an interference with democracy. In our general elections, candidates run for election, with no guarantees, no safe seats and no quotas.

    The dialogue that occurs between voters and candidates is central to our electoral system of PR STV. That dialogue happens at party selection conventions too and should not be interfered with.

    There are alternative policies to gender quotas that can be implemented by political parties to encourage more women to run for election. My party does not have a policy of gender quotas yet achieved 30 per cent women TDs at the last election.


  • Options
    #105
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Not all of the Labour Party wants to - Joanna Tuffy TD in today's (06/08/10) Irish Times:

    I oppose gender quotas because I believe they are an interference with democracy. In our general elections, candidates run for election, with no guarantees, no safe seats and no quotas.

    The dialogue that occurs between voters and candidates is central to our electoral system of PR STV. That dialogue happens at party selection conventions too and should not be interfered with.

    There are alternative policies to gender quotas that can be implemented by political parties to encourage more women to run for election. My party does not have a policy of gender quotas yet achieved 30 per cent women TDs at the last election.

    From the Labour Party website, specifically the "Labour Women Strategic Plan, 2008-2010":
    The Report of the Commission on Women's Participation in the Labour Party in 2005 made a number of recommendations which aim to increase women's participation in the Labour Party, including increasing the number of women candidates in elections. The Labour Party is committed to a target of 50% women candidates all elections after 2013, the first one being the Local Elections due in 2014. To make progress towards that target the Party aims to have 30% women candidates in the Local Elections 2009. As the number of overall female election candidates in Ireland will ultimately depend on all the political parties making progress in increasing the number of women candidates the Labour Party committed itself in the General Election manifesto to legislating for gender quotas which would require all the political parties to have a minimum percentage of women candidates.

    Are "targets" different from "quotas"?


  • Options
    #106
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    From the Labour Party website, specifically the "Labour Women Strategic Plan, 2008-2010":



    Are "targets" different from "quotas"?

    Yes. A target is an aim, an ambition. A quota is an enforceable requirement.


  • Options
    #107
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    Yes. A target is an aim, an ambition. A quota is an enforceable requirement.

    But the official position of the party is that they want quotas for everyone. Although given that they've already made moves in that direction through "targets", it seems more likely that at this stage this is another tactic to embarrass FF/FG. Like I said before, I don't really get the whole "let's force everyone to be progressive about it" approach, but I guess it works for them (internally at least, since the public doesn't seem crazy about it).


  • Options
    #108
    rebel girl 15
    Registered Users, Moderators, Education Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional South Moderators Posts: 15,247 Mod ✭✭✭✭rebel girl 15


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    But the official position of the party is that they want quotas for everyone. Although given that they've already made moves in that direction through "targets", it seems more likely that at this stage this is another tactic to embarrass FF/FG. Like I said before, I don't really get the whole "let's force everyone to be progressive about it" approach, but I guess it works for them (internally at least, since the public doesn't seem crazy about it).

    TBH, that was something that crossed my mind once i heard who was involved in it


  • Options
    #109
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    But the official position of the party is that they want quotas for everyone.

    Just because it's the official party position doesn't mean the entire party agrees with the policy, including the three out of seven women Labour TDs who say they are opposed to mandatory gender quotas.


  • Options
    #110
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Just because it's the official party position doesn't mean the entire party agrees with the policy, including the three out of seven women Labour TDs who say they are opposed to mandatory gender quotas.

    I understand that, thanks.


  • Options
    #111
    baalthor
    Registered Users Posts: 1,241 ✭✭✭baalthor


    Kooli wrote: »
    One of the letters in the Irish Times was interesting, as it compared the idea of a gender quota to the quota that already exists in terms of allocating seats to different constituencies/counties. This was to bring about fairness, and representation of all areas of the country. I'm sure people could have argued that it is discriminatory against Dublin politicians who probably would have got more seats if the vote was just left open, and why force people to elect those who haven't earned it by their own merit?

    I know it's not exactly the same, but it's an interesting point.

    It's not exactly the same: it is in fact completely different. To be charitable, I would say the person who made the comparison didn't think it through properly.

    Geographical constituencies are one method of ensuring that each vote has equal weight ie that voters in areas with the same population elect the same number of candidates. Anything else is commonly known as "gerrymandering".
    Other countries achieve the same result by having national votes for lists of candidates.

    However, constituencies are only there for equality of voting; they don't mandate who gets elected. The elected representatives don't have to come from the area covered by the constituency, they don't even have to come from Ireland!

    Dublin for example has a significant percentage of TDs who don't come from Dublin, some other counties have far less TDs in the Dail than their population would warrant and some others are "over-represented".
    In Cavan-Monaghan for example, there are currently 4 Monaghan TDs and 1 Cavan TD even though Cavan actually has a larger population than Monaghan. Using the logic employed by the IT letter writer there should always be three "Cavan" TDs in the Dail raising the issue of how one would define a "Cavan person" - that would be a "quota system".

    If you wanted to have male and female constituencies in a way similar to geographical ones, then you coulld have a male list and a female list with different candidates on each one. Only women could vote for the female list and men for the male list but candidates of either sex could appear on both lists. Worth a try ? :)

    Of course there is a big difference with geographical constituencies in that a person can register to vote in a different area if their location changes while moving from the male to the female electoral register might involve a little bit more effort ... :D.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    rebel girl 15
    Registered Users, Moderators, Education Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional South Moderators Posts: 15,247 Mod ✭✭✭✭rebel girl 15


    rebel girl 15 wrote: »
    TBH, that was something that crossed my mind once i heard who was involved in it

    yeah, about this comment, now I think its basically a vote for me report on the part of Basik - politics have a thread on it as well for anyone interested


  • Options
    #113
    panda100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,551 ✭✭✭panda100


    I thought the letter from The Irish Fem Network today in the Times was quite convincing for gender quota's.
    There are many barriers fro both men and women getting involved in politics in this county,and anything that allows for more choice in candidates gets a big Thumbs up from me. As far as I concerned anyone is better than the same me feiners we have running year in year out here in West Limerick
    Madam, – Congratulations to Mary Minihan who has successfully instigated public debate on the important issue of female representation in the Dáil (Front Page, August 4th).

    However, it appears that some have misinterpreted the quota legislation in question, arguing that it is offering women a free pass to a parliamentary seat. The actual legislation proposed merely ensures that more women be selected as candidates. Ultimately, however, even with quotas in place, the public may still vote a majority of men into the Dáil as is their democratic right. Joanna Tuffy (August 6th) fails to see that the true “interference with democracy” is the profound lack of choice for Irish voters. In the 2007 general election, voters in 60 per cent of constituencies had no option but to vote for male candidates from the two major parties – where is the democratic choice in that?

    As Miriam Murphy highlights (August 6th) women are not the only under-represented group in Irish politics, but they do make up 50 per cent of the Irish population and are doubly disadvantaged by the lack of diversity in race, sexuality or socio-economic background of those candidates put forward.

    Choice is the ultimate issue here – surely it is time now to redress our “unfinished democracy”! – Yours, etc,

    MADELINE HAWKE,
    Irish Feminist Network,
    Corn Exchange,
    Poolbeg Street, Dublin 2


  • Options
    #114
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    panda100 wrote: »
    I thought the letter from The Irish Fem Network today in the Times was quite convincing for gender quota's.
    There are many barriers fro both men and women getting involved in politics in this county,and anything that allows for more choice in candidates gets a big Thumbs up from me. As far as I concerned anyone is better than the same me feiners we have running year in year out here in West Limerick
    OK but why aren't women putting themselves forward as candidates?


  • Options
    #115
    Fukuyama
    Registered Users Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Fukuyama


    spurious wrote: »
    Political meetings are often in the evenings when many women are putting kids to bed, so women don't even get in at the bottom end of the game.

    Then ask the father to put them to bed and go to the meeting....

    You excuse sounds like a cop out.

    I suppose I could say that 'Sure all the men are down the pub so they couldnt go to it either'?


  • Options
    #116
    Bruce7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 500 ✭✭✭Bruce7


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    I think that they are a nesscary evil.

    At the founding of the state we had women T.D.s and after that but they either are legacy seats which seem passed down through families or else they are exceptional women who have worked very hard to achieve what they have.

    If you don't see your self as either of those things when it's hard to know where to go.
    The culture of politics is still very much an old way of doing things, yes it's slowly changing but its not fast enough.

    Feminists where very much invovled with the wining of Ireland's freedom and felt assure that the men would then bring them in as equal partners but due to the cosy relationship between church and state which was allowed it never happened.

    Anyone who has the time I really recommend you have a look at the small Irish feminism exhibit in the Collins Barracks museum it shows a lot of the posters and pamphlets of the time.

    I think that we should have quotas for a while to bring in change, I think that if there are two candidates who are well matched and equal in other aspects that more women should be but on the ballot but as to how to get women more invovled at a grass roots level to even get that far, it's the nature of debate which is often aggressive argument and one upmanship which turns a lot of women off and that goes back to the orgin of debate and philosophy which was a bunch of greek men arguing and they didn't include women in that cos they were just for making babies.

    Sorry, but our entire civilisation is based on the truths discovered by that "bunch of greek men arguing."

    If the proposal to change the culture of politics to make it more women friendly involves scrapping the process that led to humanity's greatest achievements, then women are better off left out of it. I personally don't believe they should be left out of it, only that if what the above poster has said is true, then they should be.

    If women have to jump through more hoops and work much harder than men to get elected, then that would suggest that a higher calibre of woman is involved in politics than her male counterparts. So why not instead propose to raise the bar for men, instead of lowering it for women?


  • Options
    #117
    SugarHigh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,265 ✭✭✭SugarHigh


    Women are not being held back they are simply not putting themselves forward. I don't think a woman who puts herself forward should be treated with a higher priority than a man. If they are not able to get into the system on their own merits instead of relying on their gender then they shouldn't be there.


  • Options
    #118
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Bruce7 wrote: »
    Sorry, but our entire civilisation is based on the truths discovered by that "bunch of greek men arguing."

    If the proposal to change the culture of politics to make it more women friendly involves scrapping the process that led to humanity's greatest achievements, then women are better off left out of it. I personally don't believe they should be left out of it, only that if what the above poster has said is true, then they should be.

    Aside from the fact that Socrates was sentenced to death for turning his powers of dialectical reasoning against the elites of Athens...:p

    Frankly I don't see much reasoned debate at all, nor careful questioning of the existing social order in much of today's contemporary politics. I don't think it's fair to say that people who don't want to engage in screaming matches have no role in politics; in fact I would venture to guess that many such people could have excellent ideas to contribute to society, but are turned off by the political culture - and again, this applies to both men and women.
    Bruce7 wrote: »
    If women have to jump through more hoops and work much harder than men to get elected, then that would suggest that a higher calibre of woman is involved in politics than her male counterparts. So why not instead propose to raise the bar for men, instead of lowering it for women?

    I think a reoccurring theme in the thread is that that the way candidates are recruited could stand a major overhaul regardless of gender, and by expanding the "pool" of potential candidates, Ireland could potentially end up with higher caliber representatives, both male and female (and more women in general). But this would require changing how politicians do business, and the current modus operandi has little to do with classical Athenian democracy and a whole lot to do with gombeenism, nepotism, and parish pump politics.


  • Options
    #119
    Bruce7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 500 ✭✭✭Bruce7


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Aside from the fact that Socrates was sentenced to death for turning his powers of dialectical reasoning against the elites of Athens...:p

    Frankly I don't see much reasoned debate at all, nor careful questioning of the existing social order in much of today's contemporary politics. I don't think it's fair to say that people who don't want to engage in screaming matches have no role in politics; in fact I would venture to guess that many such people could have excellent ideas to contribute to society, but are turned off by the political culture - and again, this applies to both men and women.



    I think a reoccurring theme in the thread is that that the way candidates are recruited could stand a major overhaul regardless of gender, and by expanding the "pool" of potential candidates, Ireland could potentially end up with higher caliber representatives, both male and female (and more women in general). But this would require changing how politicians do business, and the current modus operandi has little to do with classical Athenian democracy and a whole lot to do with gombeenism, nepotism, and parish pump politics.

    I think we both agree and are saying the same thing: It is not the rules of debate that should be changed; it is the participants.


  • Options
    #120
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    panda100 wrote: »
    I thought the letter from The Irish Fem Network today in the Times was quite convincing for gender quota's.
    There are many barriers fro both men and women getting involved in politics in this county,and anything that allows for more choice in candidates gets a big Thumbs up from me. As far as I concerned anyone is better than the same me feiners we have running year in year out here in West Limerick

    That letter is crazy.

    The concept of "choice" will be completely negated if we engage in a system of "Gender Quotas". Nobody has a right to stand, and nobody should be given the opportunity to stand on an arbitrary basis.

    The key barriers which exist are socio-economic (an election campaign is expensive), the dynasty factor, the faux debate between two middle of the road conservative parties (thanks to "The Minister" for bringing this to my attention), and the inability of people to engage in parties, whose members are so avericious and greedy, that they become greater enemies then they will with members of opposing parties.

    Gender quotas are the thin edge of the wedge. Gender doesnt qualify anybody as a suitable candidate for a job. Furthermore, those advocating quotas are usually aghast at the though of people like Alice Glenn, Margaret Thatcher, and Mary Hanafin running the show, as they are inherently conservative, and many were unwilling to tackle the key "feminist issues". In fact, many feminists would laugh at me for saying that Maggie Thatcher was the greatest feminist this world has ever seen, followed closely by Mary Harney.

    Robust females can achieve much, without the need for quotas. Has it ever occurred to the likes of Ivana Bacik, that she is not electable ? Has it ever occurred to her that she is seen as a smoked-salmon socialist, who has no moral mandate to preach the "virtues" of a failed doctrine ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    panda100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,551 ✭✭✭panda100


    Bruce7 wrote: »
    If women have to jump through more hoops and work much harder than men to get elected, then that would suggest that a higher calibre of woman is involved in politics than her male counterparts. So why not instead propose to raise the bar for men, instead of lowering it for women?

    How is gender quota's lowering the bar? I don't understand. Its just a different tactic to encourage women to play a more active role in political life.
    It may help even the playing fields a bit when it comes to what men and women have to do to get elected.
    Take sport for example, an enormous part of Irish life that is effectively closed off to women. Women's sports and athletes are treated as a joke, with little funding,media attention or adult clubs open to women. Yet the sporting arena opens enormous doors in politics for men.Sean Kelly, Packie Bonner, Graham Gerhaty, Jimmy Denihan.....the list is endless, all with no political background except kicking a ball around for 90 minutes.

    I don't understand why people are so vehmentally opposed to the idea of gender quota's when our electoral system is so grossly unfair as it is?

    I will echo Hetfield's point thought that gender most certainly doesn't qualify someone as suitable for the job. This is best summed up by Elizabeth Gurnely Flynn in the 1930's:
    "THE "QUEEN of the parlour" has nothing in common with the "maid in the kitchen"; the wife of a department store owner shows no sisterly concern for the 17 year old girl who finds prostitution the only door open to a $5 a week wage clerk.
    The sisterhood of women, like the brotherhood of men, is a hollow sham to labour. Behind all its smug hypocrisy and sickly sentimentality are the sinister outlines of the class war.' "


Advertisement