Quotas for Female Politicians in Ireland

southsiderosie · 04-08-2010 2:09pm #1

There has been an ongoing debate over the issue of female representation in electoral politics. In most democracies, the percentage of women serving in the national legislature is far below the percentage of women in the general population. Some countries have subsequently adopted quota systems, whereby parties are required to field a certain percentage of female candidates, or there are reserved seats in the legislature; examples include Argentina, Sweden, South Africa, Pakistan, Belgium and France. Proponents argue that this is necessary in order for the legislatures in representative democracies to truly be, well, representative. Critics argue that quotas are demeaning to women and simply represent tokenism, not real change.

Recently, this debate has spread to Ireland, where out of 166 seats in the Dail, only 23 of them are held by women. However, it has been controversial; it caused a huge ruckus at the Fine Gael conference where it was proposed, and the Irish Times reported that a majority of female TDs are opposed to the idea of gender quotas as well (although there are differences by party). The current online Irish Times poll is running 69% no, 31% yes.

Although I am sympathetic to the aims of the proposal, personally I don't think gender quotas are the solution to female under-representation in politics for several reasons. First, I would be concerned that female representation through a quota system would be completely divorced from actual political power, whereas if you rise through the ranks as a politician, you have clearly built up your own base. Oftentimes, I think this kind of thing is window-dressing: "Oh, sure, we'll let her in, but just sit in the back and be quiet". Another reason is that too often I think there is an underlying assumption that somehow having more women will somehow make the system "better" or more humane in some way; the reality is, many women in politics are just as stupid, cutthroat, and corrupt as the men; Sarah Palin and Iris Robinson come to mind.

The one positive effect I could see from a quota system is that it might force the major parties to look beyond their usual recruiting grounds for candidates (party youth, GAA, family dynasties) and we could end up with more candidates who were actually interested in policy, rather than playing politics...or with people who actually know something about the issues that they are legislating about. If done correctly, this could also open up the potential pool of male candidates as well.

So what say ye, loungers - should Irish parties adopt gender quotas? If so, why? If not, how can we increase female representation in the Dail? Or does this even matter?

jokettle · 04-08-2010 2:26pm

I'm not fully in favour of a quota system at all; I think it was mentioned in today's Irish Times article that if more women are introduced by way of filling a quota, then that position is devalued somewhat-a kind of "Sure she only got in because they had to bring in women" kind of attitude. I think it could lead to a lot more patronising opinions of women in the political scene.

I do, however, agree that *something* has to be done to encourage more women to enter the political sphere. Exactly what that is, I have no idea! I like your point about looking beyond the usual recruiting centres...encouraging people who are inherently affected by policies and policy change could be an interesting way to go.

jellie · 04-08-2010 3:41pm

I would much prefer someone got the job because they were better qualified for it than because of their sex.

From my experience there are far fewer women interested in politics than there are men, which id guess is a big factor in why there are less women in politics. But as someone who has very little interest in politics I dont know much about this.

Lynnsie · 04-08-2010 3:48pm

I really don't agree with gender quotas. I think it could lead to female TDs being taken less seriously then male as there would always be the perception that it was easier for the females to get where they are.

It also seems to be undemocratic - is it really a democracy if you have to field/elect a certain number of a certain type of candidate? Ideally the electorate should be voting for candidate based on their abilities and experience, as opposed to their gender. If this is not the case I don't think this form of positive discrimination is the answer. But like Jokettle, I don't know what is! However really politics is like any other career in that it attracts a higher proportion of one gender than another and it's hard to know what can be done about that.

It would be interesting to see how the number of women elected measures up to the number of women who ran in the general election, to see if it's a matter of female candidates not running for election or not actually getting elected.

spurious · 04-08-2010 3:55pm

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.

SerialComplaint · 04-08-2010 4:27pm

spurious wrote: »

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

Fixed that for you.

04-08-2010 4:35pm

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the older male TDs thought it was womens' work tbh.

I don't like the idea of a quota. I would hate to get a job and have everyone saying "you only got it because of your gender, not your ability". Even if I am hired on my ability that doubt is always going to be there.
No, I think more women have to show an interest and stick bravely at it despite the sexism, I think that's the only way forward for this.

Kooli · 04-08-2010 4:41pm

bluewolf wrote: »

No, I think more women have to show an interest and stick bravely at it despite the sexism, I think that's the only way forward for this.

But how do we make this happen?

I agree with what most here have said. Quotas are not the answer as they will fuel sexism, but something really does have to be done to encourage more women to get into politics. Can't think what that would be though - there's nothing in the world that could convince me to do it, so it's hard to think how I would convince anyone else!

um7y1h83ge06nx · 04-08-2010 4:42pm

I'm a guy and believe in all forms of equality so I would oppose any positive discrimination including this quota idea.

Permabear · 04-08-2010 6:00pm

This post has been deleted.

Pythia · 04-08-2010 6:38pm

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.

I'm involved in politics. At a college level, far more men than women are involved. I don't think they are putting their children to bed at that age. From what I have seen, politics is extremely open to women but they just aren't interested as much as men.

Gender quotas are an insult to women. It's saying, well you're not as good but since you're a little woman we'll let you have it anyway.

Bullseye1 · 04-08-2010 6:41pm

It should be based on ability not what sex you are. If that happens to be all me or all women so be it.

Sound Bite · 04-08-2010 7:08pm

I absolutely hate their supposed "equality schemes" for want of a better word.

The best person for the job should get the job, simple as. Any sort of gender, religious, ethnic majority etc quota shouldn't come into it.

Is it fair to give a job to a woman just to even out the gender balance.

I wouldn't want to get any job based on anything but merit.

southsiderosie · 04-08-2010 7:43pm

jellie wrote: »

From my experience there are far fewer women interested in politics than there are men, which id guess is a big factor in why there are less women in politics. But as someone who has very little interest in politics I dont know much about this.

spurious wrote: »

Political meetings are often in the evenings...

This is why I started this thread in TLL and not Politics. So many women say they are not interested, or they don't have the time. But when you talk to women who do get involved (and aren't from a political family) many of them say they got involved by accident - they were a member of a parent-teacher association at their child's school, or involved in some other community organization, and somehow ended up engaged in electoral politics. I think there are a lot of women who are engaged in their communities in ways that are not explicitly political, but that would transfer well to electoral politics - the question is how.

donegalfella wrote: »

The question of representation itself is a curious one. In my view, a male TD should represent the interests of all his constituents, not just those of his own gender, race, or religion. A female TD should do likewise. I don't believe that representative democracy can function if we have to elect women TDs to represent the women, Polish TDs to represent the Poles, Muslim TDs to represent the Muslims, and so on.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. In the US, many congressional districts were redrawn to create ethnic minority supermajorities as a way to build up minority representation in the Congress. Although representation did increase, the unintended side effect was that problems in those districts are treated as "minority" issues, rather than broader economic or social issues. In a democracy, this is dangerous: getting people from different parts of society to understand each other's views and work together on key issues is critical. But I also have to wonder how much non-participation by under-represented groups becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If politics is a game for middle aged men with certain last names, then why would one even bother to get involved?

Ectoplasm · 04-08-2010 7:46pm

Pythia wrote: »

I'm involved in politics. At a college level, far more men than women are involved. I don't think they are putting their children to bed at that age. From what I have seen, politics is extremely open to women but they just aren't interested as much as men.

This was interesting to me because when I was in college it was true that more men than women were involved - but it was not equally open. I enquired about joining a political society during freshers week and was all but laughed at.

Another interesting thing while at college was this; when running for student office, women were largely overlooked. Given two equally qualified candidates a male and female, the guy won hands down. This happened two years in a row while I was there. It may be immaturity but I recall discussing this with friends of mine and while most of the girls based it on who they preferred, many of the guys admitted that they would vote for the guy over the girl - on the basis that he was a guy!

While student office isn't quite the same, I do think that it is one way which can influence how women perceive politics. I also found that the male candidates had easier access to large blocks of voters through sporting socs and the like. I went to a meeting once where both candidates were to speak. The girl in question was leered at and had to put up with a lot of sexual innuendo. The guy just got listened to. She handled it like a trouper, well able to banter etc. but she definitely had the harder job that night.

Now that's 10 years ago, and perhaps things have changed a lot, but I do wonder whether a quota system at that level would work. Ordinarily I despise the notion of postive discrimination (which this would be) but maybe more encouragement at a much earlier level would be effective.

Pythia · 04-08-2010 8:09pm

EMF2010 wrote: »

This was interesting to me because when I was in college it was true that more men than women were involved - but it was not equally open. I enquired about joining a political society during freshers week and was all but laughed at.

Well in the colleges I'm familiar with, there's effectively a race to get as many people in as possible as more members = bigger college grant and also you can brag you have more than the other parties.

Political parties are full of men so any time a woman shows some interest, she's welcomed with open arms. I've found being a woman to my advantage actually.

Agent Smith · 04-08-2010 8:13pm

Pythia wrote: »

Gender quotas are an insult to women. It's saying, well you're not as good but since you're a little woman we'll let you have it anyway.

Pretty much sums up thread

southsiderosie · 04-08-2010 8:19pm

Pythia wrote: »

Well in the colleges I'm familiar with, there's effectively a race to get as many people in as possible as more members = bigger college grant and also you can brag you have more than the other parties.

Political parties are full of men so any time a woman shows some interest, she's welcomed with open arms. I've found being a woman to my advantage actually.

Interesting. Have you noticed differences between parties? I thought it was interesting that the Labour TDs generally supported the quota measure (and the party issues a press release describing why), while FF & FG's responses were more mixed. There were a few young female Labour candidates who did quite well in the local elections, but the media coverage of them was disgraceful: articles like "Pretty pitch from the hopeful in high heels" were legion.

Ectoplasm · 05-08-2010 12:14am

That Labour press release was interesting actually - it made me stop and think about my initial reaction (which was an automatic no to this). A few of the things they mention would be more interesting to me though, such as mentoring or increased political education for girls/young women.

That headline actually turned my stomach. How patronising. When you read the article, you see a political candidate who has been active in her community, has a political education, and a clear political agenda - but what is important here? That she does her canvassing in heels. :mad:

southsiderosie · 05-08-2010 8:50am

EMF2010 wrote: »

That Labour press release was interesting actually - it made me stop and think about my initial reaction (which was an automatic no to this). A few of the things they mention would be more interesting to me though, such as mentoring or increased political education for girls/young women.

I think this is key, but part of the problem in Ireland is that FF & FG lean heavily on "legacy" voters - people whose families have always voted for them, no matter what. FF in particular don't seen to have as great of a need to cast a wider net, because they have generally been able to win doing things the way they always have (although this may change). Other parties need to work more on grassroots mobilization, and from what I've seen smaller, scrappy parties like the People Before Profit Alliance have been doing that (and they have a lot of women involved). The issue there is, I don't think they can turn their local gains into national representation.

One thing I would give Irish voters credit for is that while they may vote FF/FG based on family history, they are also willing to give transfer votes to individual candidates who they feel work hard and are honest. For example, the Socialist party gets no traction in Ireland, but people are willing to vote for Joe Higgins; Richard Boyd Barrett of PBPA gets support in Dun Laoghaire, which isn't exactly a bastion of radical left-wing politics. So I think there is space for women to get elected, even without the mainstream parties - IF they put in a lot of work on the ground. And that seems to be the sticking point.

Personally, I'd be more inclined to give someone a look who had spent 10-15 years doing grunt work in their community rather than the candidate who went straight from student council to the party youth wing to the ballot (i.e. the type that has been running for office since they were 10 years old). But that's just me.

05-08-2010 9:40am

Interesting letter in the times:

Madam, – Your article on Dáil quotas for women raises a question for those female politicians opposed to quotas.

We have tried the last 80 years without quotas, and progress has been glacially slow. Opponents keep saying that other issues need to be addressed, but when will they address them? What are they waiting for? There is an argument that politics will only become female-friendly when each sex reaches a minimum critical mass of Dáil members, say 45 per cent, and so can change it from the inside.

So why not bring in a quota system for two Dáil terms, and then abolish it?

Where is the harm in trying temporary quotas? Are FF, FG and Labour honestly saying that they can’t find 45 impressive women in their entire respective parties? Really?

As it happens, we do use quotas in Irish elections, on a geographical basis, where a county is entitled to a certain number of seats on the ballot paper.

Mayo or Longford demand, rightly, their fair share of Dáil seats. Why not women? – Yours, etc,

This might be an idea.
Bring in a temporary quota to kickstart things, then get rid of it so there's no doubt cast on anyone's merit.

southsiderosie · 05-08-2010 9:56am

bluewolf wrote: »

Bring in a temporary quota to kickstart things, then get rid of it so there's no doubt cast on anyone's merit.

If there were to be a quota system, I would almost rather see the reverse: give the parties several election cycles to hit a target, then mandate quotas. If it were to be immediate, then I think we'd get a lot of unseasoned candidates and/or nepotism.

That said, I see a glaring problem in the letter's logic:

As it happens, we do use quotas in Irish elections, on a geographical basis, where a county is entitled to a certain number of seats on the ballot paper.

Mayo or Longford demand, rightly, their fair share of Dáil seats. Why not women? – Yours, etc,

I don't think you can equate having geographic representation with gender or ethnic representation. Would a female TD represent "women's issues"? How would these issues be defined? That said, geographic districts and the parish pump culture of Irish politics are problematic as well; too many TD only think about their districts and not about national issues.

r3nu4l · 05-08-2010 10:08am

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.

Bull. Most people get into politics at a young age before they have kids. Do you really think those that are serious about it will stay at home to put the kids to bed? If they do then it just shows that they weren't really interested in politics or a political career in the first place.

Also, as a man who puts his daughter to bed every night (because it's the only time I see her all day thanks to my work life) I find that comment pretty insulting and naive. Most of the guys here at work are the one's who put their kids to bed for exactly the same reason that I do.

Pythia wrote: »

I'm involved in politics. At a college level, far more men than women are involved. I don't think they are putting their children to bed at that age. From what I have seen, politics is extremely open to women but they just aren't interested as much as men.

Gender quotas are an insult to women. It's saying, well you're not as good but since you're a little woman we'll let you have it anyway.

Indeed.

EMF2010 wrote: »

This was interesting to me because when I was in college it was true that more men than women were involved - but it was not equally open. I enquired about joining a political society during freshers week and was all but laughed at.

So you gave up? Interesting. Says more about you than the morons who laughed at you.

Another interesting thing while at college was this; when running for student office, women were largely overlooked. Given two equally qualified candidates a male and female, the guy won hands down. This happened two years in a row while I was there. It may be immaturity but I recall discussing this with friends of mine and while most of the girls based it on who they preferred, many of the guys admitted that they would vote for the guy over the girl - on the basis that he was a guy!

Suspicious. In NUIM we had quite a few female presidents elected to the SU when I was there. Most years however it was only men in the running because not a single female in the University entered into the competition. Female candidates were few and far between but when they did run they seemed to be elected more often.

I also found that the male candidates had easier access to large blocks of voters through sporting socs and the like.

Well that's rubbish. If the female candidate was actually involved in a few clubs and societies then I'm sure she would get as many votes from the people who knew her as the guy from the people that knew him. If the female candidate hasn't been interacting with 'local' groups then that shows that she has distanced herself from her 'community' and therefore nobody is going to vote for her. The same goes for any candidate, male or female.

I went to a meeting once where both candidates were to speak. The girl in question was leered at and had to put up with a lot of sexual innuendo. The guy just got listened to. She handled it like a trouper, well able to banter etc. but she definitely had the harder job that night.

Sounds like you went to a University full of morons to be honest. If you went to NUI Maynooth then you and I had very different experiences there

Now that's 10 years ago, and perhaps things have changed a lot, but I do wonder whether a quota system at that level would work.

Well I was in NUI Maynooth 17 years ago when we had a female president of the SU and we had female presidents after that too. They weren't laughed at any more than the male candidates and in fact in one particular year a guy called Dónal got the worst roasting I've ever seen during his campaign. Far worse than any of the female candidates.

Ordinarily I despise the notion of postive discrimination (which this would be) but maybe more encouragement at a much earlier level would be effective.

Nope, they wouldn't work. Positive discrimination harbours resent amongst those being negatively discriminated against as a result. That resent just fosters and cements further division.

Joey the lips · 05-08-2010 12:24pm

I heard this arguement on the radio last night and tbh i think its daft. By positivly discriminating in favor of women are you getting the right cannidate or the right mix and if you believe that the mix should be changed then why dont we take it futher

Have clothes shops positivly discriminate in favor of men so there is not 1 man to 10 women

Have women hairdressers do the same

Have it that outdoor even management will employ the same amount of men and women.

You can go on and on and overboard on this.

The simple solution is to have women that want to run for politics run....

If mary robbinson and mary mcallese can do it....

Ectoplasm · 05-08-2010 1:08pm

r3nu4l wrote: »

So you gave up? Interesting. Says more about you than the morons who laughed at you.

Due respect but I never said I gave up. I was simply recounting my experience.

Suspicious. In NUIM we had quite a few female presidents elected to the SU when I was there. Most years however it was only men in the running because not a single female in the University entered into the competition. Female candidates were few and far between but when they did run they seemed to be elected more often.

Clearly your experiences were very different to mine, but this was my experience (whether you find it suspicious or not) and I was just wondering had things changed given that it was 10 years ago.

Sounds like you went to a University full of morons to be honest. If you went to NUI Maynooth then you and I had very different experiences there

No I didn't go to NUIM but have friends who did - and I watched an incredibly qualified candidate, who had been working in the SU since he joined the college and done an incredible amount in that time, be overlooked in favour of somebody joined the election 'for a laugh' (his words), had no mandate but curiously enough was on the GAA team. To me that seemed moronic but I'd hardly call the whole college morons as a result.

Nope, they wouldn't work. Positive discrimination harbours resent amongst those being negatively discriminated against as a result. That resent just fosters and cements further division.

Sorry if I was unclear, but I wasn't actually advocating quotas, just wondering whether more encouragement of female candidates in student politics might have a positive effect. Maybe it wouldn't make any difference at all, and as I'm out of college myself, I'm not really in a position to say. It was more a question than anything else.

I would hate to see a woman being given a job simply because she is a woman - it's patronising. In fact, in the last election I watched a woefully underqualified female candidate be defeated and I was delighted to see it. She had been on my doorstep arguing that I should vote for her because she was a women and I should overlook the fact that she didn't have the same credentials as others.

I do think it's a real issue though, and at least by talking about quotas, the topic is being discussed.

panda100 · 05-08-2010 1:19pm

southsiderosie wrote: »

Interesting. Have you noticed differences between parties? I thought it was interesting that the Labour TDs generally supported the quota measure (and the party issues a press release describing why), while FF & FG's responses were more mixed. There were a few young female Labour candidates who did quite well in the local elections, but the media coverage of them was disgraceful: articles like "Pretty pitch from the hopeful in high heels" were legion.

Yeah my initial reaction yesterday was If FF and FG are so vehemently opposed to it, then maybe gender quota's are a good idea!
The media coverage of some of the young female Labour candidates in the local elections was abhorrent, and would turn anyone off running in an election.

Personally, I would be against gender quota's in this country. Give me 1 Joe Higgins over 10 Mary Hannafins any day of the week. I vote people in because of their policies and not their gender.

The female politicians in FF and the Greens have done f*ck all about issues that affect women in this country. Theres absolutely no action or political discourse on reproductive rights.We still get paid less than men, with the government all in favour of a wage race to the bottom.The state pays us nothing for being the primary carers to children, the elderly and disabled.
Harney hasn't shown any particular interest in women's health. The privatisation of our health system means you have to be able to fork out 3,000 a week to be treated for an eating disorder. Be they female or male,Irish politicians are a joke. As someone said earlier in the thread, the whole system has to change.

Oh and don't get me started with FF's cosy relationship with the church, which has proven time and time again how much it hates women. No wonder women are so turned of politics, why be involved in something that won't have any benefit for you whatsoever.

Nevyn · 05-08-2010 1:25pm

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.

southsiderosie · 05-08-2010 1:31pm

Joey the lips wrote: »

The simple solution is to have women that want to run for politics run....

If mary robbinson and mary mcallese can do it....

I've always wondered about this: Irish voters seem willing to put women in as the head of state, but do you think they would support a woman as head of government? Arguably much of the role of head of state is symbolic - it's not unimportant, but it doesn't necessarily affect the day-to-day operation of the state in the same way.

I just wonder because it seems like many voting publics are comfortable seeing women in high positions that have symbolic meaning or moral significance but aren't actually that powerful. Or within government women on the front bench or within the cabinet have positions that are important - like health or education - but are considered 'soft', especially compared to positions such as Minister of Finance, which seems to be a springboard to the position of taoiseach. I know this isn't uniformly true, but it does seem like a general trend.

Or maybe the problem isn't the public, but the parties themselves...

Nevyn · 05-08-2010 1:41pm

panda100 wrote: »

The female politicians in FF and the Greens have done f*ck all about issues that affect women in this country. Theres absolutely no action or political discourse on reproductive rights.We still get paid less than men, with the government all in favour of a wage race to the bottom.The state pays us nothing for being the primary carers to children, the elderly and disabled.
Harney hasn't shown any particular interest in women's health. The privatisation of our health system means you have to be able to fork out 3,000 a week to be treated for an eating disorder. Be they female or male,Irish politicians are a joke. As someone said earlier in the thread, the whole system has to change.

They get slated if they do and not taken seriously as they are meant to be about the 'real work' of the government :rolleyes:

Which is why women's issues are left for lobby groups to put pressure and the then get a certain ammount of funding which then has men givign out about the feminist machine which is out to oppress them.

panda100 wrote: »

Oh and don't get me started with FF's cosy relationship with the church, which has proven time and time again how much it hates women. No wonder women are so turned of politics, why be involved in something that won't have any benefit for you whatsoever.

Women do get invovled at local community level but that just doesn't translate into 'proper' politics.

Jeboa Safari · 05-08-2010 1:44pm

If the people think they're good enough they'll get voted in, having quotas would be more undemocratic I would have thought. Don't see why someone should get in just because they're a woman if theres a man that can do a better job. There's also less women interested in running I would imagine

Nevyn · 05-08-2010 1:47pm

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

If the people think they're good enough they'll get voted in, having quotas would be more undemocratic I would have thought. Don't see why someone should get in just because they're a woman if theres a man that can do a better job. There's also less women interested in running I would imagine

Because a lot of them don't' think politics is for them, due to the culture of it.

southsiderosie · 05-08-2010 2:01pm

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

If the people think they're good enough they'll get voted in, having quotas would be more undemocratic I would have thought. Don't see why someone should get in just because they're a woman if theres a man that can do a better job. There's also less women interested in running I would imagine

Just to be clear, this is about expanding the candidate pool. Ultimately the decision is up to voters. So someone isn't automatically going to "get in" because they are female, they would just get a look.

The "if there's a man who can do a better job" part of this bothers me. By what criteria do you define 'better job'? Is a man who organized campus youth party events doing a "better job" than a woman who organized fundraisers for her child's school? I think that party officials need to broaden how they define "political experience" and capabilities, and quotas might force them to do that.

southsiderosie · 05-08-2010 2:14pm

Sorry to double-post, but Ivana Bacik of the Labour Party had an op-ed in the Irish Times today on the quota issue. Her sub-committee report on women in Irish politics found the following:

...First, we examined the challenges facing women on entry into politics, and suggested that these can be summarised under five headings (the “five C’s”): childcare; cash; confidence; culture; and candidate selection procedures.

Under “childcare”, we found that the “long hours” culture in politics is a factor which discourages women from being more politically active. We recommended therefore that, for example, changes to political party processes and council and Oireachtas sitting times are necessary to ensure that childcare and other family responsibilities can be accommodated, both for men and women in politics.

Under the “cash” heading, we found lack of resources to be another major factor inhibiting women in politics, particularly as, in Ireland, women earn on average 22 per cent less than their male counterparts. We recommended, among other things, the establishment of a national fundraising campaign to finance women’s electoral campaigns and the voluntary provision of additional funds by parties to support women candidates.

Under “confidence” – women tend to lack sufficient self-belief to participate actively in political life, and to put themselves forward for selection in political parties. So we recommended that parties be encouraged to introduce recruitment drives aimed at women, seeking to identify and “head-hunt” women in local areas.

Under the “culture” heading, we found that the “overall masculine image of politics”, remains as a powerful barrier for women’s increased participation. We recommended that specific steps be taken, in particular through the education system, to encourage more women into politics through education programmes, and the creation of a national data bank of potential women candidates, on a constituency-by-constituency basis.

Finally, the issue of candidate selection procedures within political parties has been identified in research internationally as the single most important obstacle to women’s political participation. This is the most controversial area, and this is where the question of quotas arises.

The question is how best to reform these procedures to achieve increased numbers of women in parliament. We reviewed the different models for reform in various countries and found that legislative electoral quotas, as experienced in Spain and Belgium, would be effective in the Irish political system. Thus, we recommended that candidate quota legislation be adopted, to oblige each political party to impose a maximum limit on the proportion of candidates of any one gender selected to run in elections at local, national and European levels. Such legislation should be introduced on a temporary basis only, to ensure that when targets are met, the law will lapse.

rebel girl 15 · 05-08-2010 2:16pm

I'd disagree with quotas - another poster mentioned that it would be basically seen as oh she got in just because she is a woman. They could be aliens for all I care, it is whoever is best suited to the job, should get the job, not on the basis of gender. Forcing quotas on parties could backfire. I do agree that more should be done to get wmoen into politics, but forcing quotas isn't the way.

Ivana Bacik wrote:

“In 1990 when Mary Robinson was elected as our first women president we were at 37th place in the world classification of women’s representation in the single or lower house of national parliament…but by October of this year we had fallen to 84th position in the world

In the last twenty years, women's rights and role in Ireland have changed dramatically, from the traditional stay at home mother to women that are empowered, independent and career woman. I'm not saying all women are or were, but imo thats the stereotype that is out there now, with more families than 20 years ago having both parents employed outside the home. So how come 20 years ago, when women weren't seen as equal to males as they are today we were very high up that list, whereas now in a modern society where gender discrimination exists less than 20 years ago that women in power has dropped so significantly.

Ms Basik mentions about the“overall masculine image of politics” as a barrier that still remains, but how come 20 years ago, that barrier was seemingly being overcome much easier than today, when the perceived role of women has come a long way? She did hit the nail on the head when she says that we assumed that women's participation would increase but it hasn't, in fact it has decreased!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1105/breaking52.html

Joey the lips · 05-08-2010 2:17pm

southsiderosie wrote: »

I've always wondered about this: Irish voters seem willing to put women in as the head of state, but do you think they would support a woman as head of government? Arguably much of the role of head of state is symbolic - it's not unimportant, but it doesn't necessarily affect the day-to-day operation of the state in the same way.

I just wonder because it seems like many voting publics are comfortable seeing women in high positions that have symbolic meaning or moral significance but aren't actually that powerful. Or within government women on the front bench or within the cabinet have positions that are important - like health or education - but are considered 'soft', especially compared to positions such as Minister of Finance, which seems to be a springboard to the position of taoiseach. I know this isn't uniformly true, but it does seem like a general trend.

Or maybe the problem isn't the public, but the parties themselves...

All mary hannifan has to do is a stint in finance and she is ready for the job....

panda100 · 05-08-2010 2:19pm

southsiderosie wrote: »

The "if there's a man who can do a better job" part of this bothers me. By what criteria do you define 'better job'? Is a man who organized campus youth party events doing a "better job" than a woman who organized fundraisers for her child's school? I think that party officials need to broaden how they define "political experience" and capabilities, and quotas might force them to do that.

Thats a very,very valid point actually!

For me the person who will do a better job is those active in their local communities and passionate about ensuring a decent standard of living for all. Its why Maureen O'Sullivan was one of the few people I've bothered voting for.

In Dublin you'll see the majority of those active in community groups are women,spearheading various campaigns in their local area's. So by my definition of what is the best person for the job their really should be more women td's!

southsiderosie · 05-08-2010 2:22pm

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

In the last twenty years, women's rights and role in Ireland have changed dramatically, from the traditional stay at home mother to women that are empowered, independent and career woman. I'm not saying all women are or were, but imo thats the stereotype that is out there now, with more families than 20 years ago having both parents employed outside the home. So how come 20 years ago, when women weren't seen as equal to males as they are today we were very high up that list, whereas now in a modern society where gender discrimination exists less than 20 years ago that women in power has dropped so significantly.

Ms Basik mentions about the“overall masculine image of politics” as a barrier that still remains, but how come 20 years ago, that barrier was seemingly being overcome much easier than today, when the perceived role of women has come a long way? She did hit the nail on the head when she says that we assumed that women's participation would increase but it hasn't, in fact it has decreased!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1105/breaking52.html

I don't think it was that Ireland was so great 20 years ago, I just think that other countries were abysmal. Ireland didn't change, but the rest of the world did.

Nevyn · 05-08-2010 2:30pm

Joey the lips wrote: »

All mary hannifan has to do is a stint in finance and she is ready for the job....

No.
I don't want a rabid right wing ultra conservative catholic like that leading the government thank you all the same.

rebel girl 15 · 05-08-2010 2:34pm

panda100 wrote: »

Thats a very,very valid point actually!

For me the person who will do a better job is those active in their local communities and passionate about ensuring a decent standard of living for all. Its why Maureen O'Sullivan was one of the few people I've bothered voting for.

In Dublin you'll see the majority of those active in community groups are women,spearheading various campaigns in their local area's. So by my definition of what is the best person for the job their really should be more women td's!

She is one of the TD's who said No to quotas. I completely agree about the fact that those active in their local communities are the best people for the job.

Just for interest, I'll list the TD's that said no to quotas
Mary Hanafin - not a good idea or necessarily work
Mary Harney - where we are is very disappointing
Mary White (minister of state for equality) - I got in without a quota and I'm very proud of that
Mary Coughlan - women should be elected according to their ability
Aine Brady - reluctant to engage in the quota method
Mary O Rourke - quotas are discriminatory
Mary Wallace - women involved in FF have strong role models
Maire Hickey - I may change my mind, no progress has been made
Lucinda Creighton - quotas are a very easy way to get people off the hook
Olwyn Enright - quotas are a little simplistic
Roisin Shortall - I never felt I'd like to be in a a quota position
Mary Upton - next thing there will be a quota for blue eyes
Maureen O Sullivan - they are insulting to women

On the yes side we have
Beverley Flynn - in an ideal world I wouldn't agree
Margaret Conlon - I have no difficulty with quotas per se
Deidre Clune - politics is a male dominated world
Kathleen Lynch - choice is democratic
Olivia Mitchell - I'm a very reluctant yes
Joan Burton - broadly support the proposal
Liz McManus - but I don't believe it is going to be easy

Only one TD is one the fence, Catherine Byrne, stating that it is a difficult decision to make

Nevyn · 05-08-2010 2:37pm

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

In the last twenty years, women's rights and role in Ireland have changed dramatically, from the traditional stay at home mother to women that are empowered, independent and career woman. I'm not saying all women are or were, but imo thats the stereotype that is out there now, with more families than 20 years ago having both parents employed outside the home. So how come 20 years ago, when women weren't seen as equal to males as they are today we were very high up that list, whereas now in a modern society where gender discrimination exists less than 20 years ago that women in power has dropped so significantly.

Because generation Yes seems to think all the battles are won until they find themselves being discriminated against so they are not as active or getting as involved and so there is a gap and the causes being dropped.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Ms Basik mentions about the“overall masculine image of politics” as a barrier that still remains, but how come 20 years ago, that barrier was seemingly being overcome much easier than today, when the perceived role of women has come a long way? She did hit the nail on the head when she says that we assumed that women's participation would increase but it hasn't, in fact it has decreased!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1105/breaking52.html

It is still very masculine from the attire required to how a person presents themselves and debates and a lot of the skills and attributes associated are seen as unfeminine and there fore make a woman unattractive.

The outspoken woman is still seen as an aberration and as a result it is not something many young women aspire to.

We don't have the type of social studies we need about politics and women in politics in secondary school where it is needed.

metrovelvet · 05-08-2010 2:42pm

Its an outrageous idea. Totally counter democratic.

metrovelvet · 05-08-2010 2:46pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Because generation Yes seems to think all the battles are won until they find themselves being discriminated against so they are not as active or getting as involved and so there is a gap and the causes being dropped.

It is still very masculine from the attire required to how a person presents themselves and debates and a lot of the skills and attributes associated are seen as unfeminine and there fore make a woman unattractive.

The outspoken woman is still seen as an aberration and as a result it is not something many young women aspire to.

We don't have the type of social studies we need about politics and women in politics in secondary school where it is needed.

They'll have to get over it. That's the price you pay as a woman if you want to get into politics, unless you're in Italy, where they will elect a porn star.

Morlar · 05-08-2010 2:46pm

My question on this would be why would I as a voter want to be represented by a politician who is incapable of even getting fairly elected ?

If a prospective representative of mine (ie a FF/FG/LAB/Green/SF etc politician) is not capable of being personally selected by their party, and of attaining the correct level of votes in a general election to enter office what does that say about their abilities as a representative of my best interests ?

I would rather be represented by a politician who is at least capable of being elected fairly.

This is an anti democratic proposal in my view in that it discriminates against the dynammic and the capable in favour of those who are not.

southsiderosie · 05-08-2010 2:48pm

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its an outrageous idea. Totally counter democratic.

Well, a lot of democracies have it, and it has made a huge difference in female representation. It takes a long time for the culture at the top to change though.

Given the statistics, what would you suggest?

southsiderosie · 05-08-2010 2:52pm

Morlar wrote: »

My question on this would be why would I as a voter want to be represented by a politician who is incapable of even getting fairly elected ?

If a prospective representative of mine (ie a FF/FG/LAB/Green/SF etc politician) is not capable of being personally selected by their party, and of attaining the correct level of votes in a general election to enter office what does that say about their abilities as a representative of my best interests ?

You have a lot of faith in parties. Perhaps more than you should, given the party leadership in this country for the last two decades.

Morlar wrote: »

I would rather be represented by a politician who is at least capable of being elected fairly.

It's not about elections, it's about the candidates.

Morlar wrote: »

This is an anti democratic proposal in my view in that it discriminates against the dynammic and the capable in favour of those who are not.

Do you really think the most dynamic and capable politicians are the ones that the party selects to put on the ballot? A huge percentage of Irish politicians are there because they are members of dynastic political families.

Zulu · 05-08-2010 2:52pm

Do people seriously believe that sexism is the actual answer to the problem of sexism? Seriously?

Madness.

metrovelvet · 05-08-2010 2:53pm

southsiderosie wrote: »

Well, a lot of democracies have it, and it has made a huge difference in female representation. It takes a long time for the culture at the top to change though.

Given the statistics, what would you suggest?

What democracies use quotas in their elections?

I have no suggestions as to artificially create a representation that is anti democratic just to satisfy a leftist fantasy.

Let the people decide.

Morlar · 05-08-2010 3:03pm

southsiderosie wrote: »

You have a lot of faith in parties.

No this issue is not about whether or not you have a lot of faith in Irish political parties at all. Nor politicians for that matter. I have next to no faith in Irish political parties and still am opposed to this anti-democratic proposal/notion.

However I would say I have even less faith in those politicians who are incapable of getting themselves fairly elected to the position they want to have and claim to deserve. How could any self respecting politician take a position they have not earned fairly ? Do you really think this would attract the most noble character and the righteous/capable etc ?

southsiderosie wrote: »

Perhaps more than you should, given the party leadership in this country for the last two decades.

This discussion is about quotas which will make compulsory the discrimination against male in favour of female meaning that factors like skilll and leadership not to mention guile and personality, charm, tact, ability etc go out the window in favour of what's between your legs. This is something you claim to be opposed to is it not ?

southsiderosie wrote: »

It's not about elections, it's about the candidates.

It is about the political representatives. Perhaps you can address a single point I made in that post ? Why should I or any other voter in this country be content to be represented by a political candidate who is incapable of being fairly chosen for the job ?

southsiderosie wrote: »

Do you really think the most dynamic and capable politicians are the ones that the party selects to put on the ballot?

If you can not maneuvre and manipulate your political party into placing your name on the ballot then you are not a capable representative of my best interests. If you can not get your political career over the most basic of hurdles what can I expect from you in terms of leadership qualities as my representative ? Answer = Zilch.

southsiderosie wrote: »

A huge percentage of Irish politicians are there because they are members of dynastic political families.

Utterly irrelevant. Female members of dynastic political families are also there. There are both male and female non members of political dynasties too.

panda100 · 05-08-2010 3:04pm

southsiderosie wrote: »

Do you really think the most dynamic and capable politicians are the ones that the party selects to put on the ballot? A huge percentage of Irish politicians are there because they are members of dynastic political families.

Best way to get 'fairly' selected as an electoral candidate by FF or FG is join when your young and kiss lots of ass for 20 years ; Promote big business or a rich businessman over the welfare of your constituents as they will be providing you with your campaign fund; Focus on a completely irrelevant issue such as stag hunting or head shops and create complete hysteria about it in your area ; Attend as many funerals of dead constituents you can and pretend to be sorry they died on a trolley in an understaffed,packed A+E ward.

How can anyone defend the current electoral and political system in this country?!

rebel girl 15 · 05-08-2010 3:04pm

Morlar wrote: »

Utterly irrelevant. Female members of dynastic political families are also there. There are both male and female non members of political dynasties too.

Mary O Rourke of the Lenihan political dynasty being the example that pops into my head

edit - Mary Hanafin as well I think had a father and brother involved in high level politics

EI111 · 05-08-2010 3:06pm

Quotas are undemocratic

Quotas for Female Politicians in Ireland

Comments