Quotas for Female Politicians in Ireland

taconnol wrote: »

So the barriers to women entering public office have to be identified and removed.

I doubt you'll find anybody disagreeing with you on that. In the same way the barriers to the poor and PAYE workers entering public office have to be identified and removed.

If they turn out to be the same thing, so much the better!

Piste wrote: »

Sorry to drag up an old thread, I just have a question from reading this thread that I think is most suited to here and doesn't warrant its own thread.

With all the talk of quotas and methods to increasing the no. of women in political life in Ireland I have to ask why this is necessary? Why is it so important to specifically have more women in politics? I'd be interested to hear people's opinions as it's an issue that hasn't been dealt with much in this thread.

I'd say the main issue is that women make up such a large proportion of the country and yet are incredibly under-represented in politics.
I'm not a big fan of the "We wouldn't be in a recession if the Dáil wasn't a bunch of middle aged white men" claim, but there's clearly something fairly wrong when a group as large as women isn't being seen on a political level.
As Ireland is a representative democracy, I'd be very interested in seeing more women take a greater role in it as they face their own trials and tribulations which men don't (maternity leave for example) and I'd say it'd be good for Ireland to have this input.

However, I don't think that increasing the amount of women in the Dáil will automatically lead to a higher standard. For every Joan Burton there is a Beverly Cooper Flynn. I do think it will lead to greater diversity within Ireland which isn't something to be sniffed at.

I don't think gender quotas are the way to go but clearly something needs to be looked at: why are women so under-represented and what can be done about it?

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

The problem with quotas are:

1. It's undemocratic.

The problem with democracy is that majority rule can marginalise the minority, sometimes out of existence.

30 years ago, the majority believed that gay was a disease, which meant that the democratic system was supporting horrendously discriminatory laws against gay people. It took a lot of work by some very courageous gay people to change all that.

My point is that, in a democracy, an unnatural norm can become self-sustaining. Just because the majority believes something to be true, and hence are able to enforce their beliefs through the democratic system, doesn't make them right. And their ability to enforce their beliefs can make change very very difficult to achieve.

EDIT: (I've just realised that what I've said above could be misread) Do I believe that there is a fundamental misogyny in Irish politics that is at the root of the problem? The answer to that is - I don't know - I'm not that heavily involved in politics myself. What I do know is that there is a problem, and that gender quotas are probably a good way of getting at that fundamental problem.

2. It's arbritrary. Nobody has proven that politics would improve just because women were in it.

Your point being? It is also true that no-one has proven that politics would disimprove if there were more women. And it is true that no-one has proven that politics would disimprove if men were banned etc etc etc.

3. If we apply quotas to politics, shouldn't we also apply them to teaching, nursing, construction workers, etc?

There is a fundamental difference between politics and pretty much every other profession, namely that politics is how we organise society. If it is how we organise society, then it needs to be reflective of society.

4. If we apply quotas based on the presence/absence of a particular chromosome (this one), then why not also apply them based on employment history, education, etc? Most politicians these days are 3rd level graduates who come from public service. There are very few PAYE workers, as well as those who didn't go to college. These groups are even more affected by the 5 C's than the homogenous group "woman."

Before I answer that one, I want to outline the kind of quota system I would like to see in place. It is one where something like 30% of the candidates had to be female. Note - that's 30% of the candidates, not the TDs - the TDs still need to be elected by the public! Note also that it's 30% of the candidates taken from 50% of the population - I don't think that's too much to ask! If a political party cannot find 30% qualified candidates from 50% of the population, then I think there is something wrong with that party.

Now to answer your question - yes, I think there is merit in candidate quotas for other grossly underrepresented sections of society. Of course, there are only a few subsections of society that are large enough to make quotas work - women, people who didn't get a 3rd level education, and paye workers are three. As for other minorities, what some governments do is have a minister for minorities.

5. Single issue parties would be discriminated against. If, say, Fathers for Justice wanted to run candidates to try and get some parental rights established for them, they'd be hard pressed to find women candidates that they'd be forced to somehow find. Similarly if a feminist movement wanted to form a party to push women's issues, they'd find it difficult to find male candidates.

I'd wholeheartedly support Fathers for Justice. Why? Because I love men - and I think F4J have very valid points. I know some men who have experienced the kinds of injustices that F4J are campaigning against, and it is plain wrong. Could I be a candidate for them? Yes, though my real passions are elsewhere, so I might not be the best female candidate they could find. And I've no doubt at all that there are plenty of women who are deeply personally affected by those injustices (e.g. the men's sisters, second wives, daughters, cousins etc) who would make excellent candidates.

If a feminist organisation can't find men who support women's issues, then it becomes even more important that gender quotas are introduced, otherwise women's issues are in danger of being completely marginalised.

I've no issues with an individual political party wanting to do it voluntarily (like how the Scandinavian countries do it)...it's being forced to do it that I object to.

We are all forced into things that are uncomfortable for us - paying taxes, for instance. Usually, however, there is good reason behind what it is we are forced to do.

Reverse Sexism still is still sexism.

panda100 wrote: »

+1. The government should reflect the people it represents. At the moment, it reflects only middle-aged, wealthy,Catholic men, whereas Irish society is much more diverse than this.

I do find it hypocritical that this issue is so opposed, especially in our media. Last year we saw the entry into medicine made far easier and radically changed to allow more men to enter the profession. If we allow society to alter the rules, in favour of men, in order to recruit our medical proffesionals, whats the difference in allowing women a helping hand to enter politics?

Its just insanely sexist that the one profession that has changed its rules in order to benefit gender balance is the most prestigious profession in the country. A concentrated effort should be made to actively encourage men into teaching and nursing too. Just as women should be encouraged into the political sphere.

That was never the purpose of the HPAT - it was to take the pressure off students from pushing for 600 points. Boys just happened to do better. Moreover, there are many scholarships for women in science/engineering.