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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Quotas for Female Politicians in Ireland

135678

Comments

  • #102
    SerialComplaint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #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.


  • #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.


  • #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"?


  • #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.


  • #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).


  • #108
    rebel girl 15
    Moderators, Education 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


  • #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.


  • #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.


  • #111
    baalthor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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
  • #112
    rebel girl 15
    Moderators, Education 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


  • #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


  • #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?


  • #115
    Fukuyama
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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'?


  • #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?


  • #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.


  • #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.


  • #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.


  • #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
  • #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.' "


  • #122
    maggy_thatcher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,056 ✭✭✭maggy_thatcher


    panda100 wrote: »
    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?

    The problem with quotas are:
    1. It's undemocratic. Instead of looking purely at who the best people are for a job, we can only look for the best woman (or man in the cases that the quota swings the other way), who may or may not be the same person. If this were applied in any other career, there would be a lawsuit for discrimination.
    2. It's arbritrary. Nobody has proven that politics would improve just because women were in it.
    3. If we apply quotas to politics, shouldn't we also apply them to teaching, nursing, construction workers, etc? If not, why not?
    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."
    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'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.


  • #123
    invinciblePRSTV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,017 ✭✭✭invinciblePRSTV


    I have no problem with mandatory gender quotas being introduced so long as similar qoutas are introduced to ensure:

    A) There is an appropriate quota for ethnic minorities in DE
    B) An appropriate quota is introduced for the the various religions
    C) That each socio-economic group are represented with an appropriate qouta for each segment
    D)A appropriate qouta is introduced to reflect the LGBT population

    It's clear that each group outlined above and their 'issues' will only be adequately represented in national political discourse by having seats in our democratically elected parliament reserved for them.


  • #124
    maggy_thatcher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,056 ✭✭✭maggy_thatcher


    invinciblePRSTV wrote: »
    I have no problem with mandatory gender quotas being introduced so long as similar qoutas are introduced to ensure:

    A) There is an appropriate quota for ethnic minorities in DE
    B) An appropriate quota is introduced for the the various religions
    C) That each socio-economic group are represented with an appropriate qouta for each segment
    D)A appropriate qouta is introduced to reflect the LGBT population

    It's clear that each group outlined above and their 'issues' will only be adequately represented in national political discourse by having seats in our democratically elected parliament reserved for them.

    And an appropriate quota is based on (natural) hair colour, eye colour, height, weight, shoe size etc.? :D

    If we're introducing quotas for one arbritrary group, why not them all?


  • #125
    invinciblePRSTV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,017 ✭✭✭invinciblePRSTV


    maggy_thatcher wrote: »

    If we're introducing quotas for one arbritrary group, why not them all?

    Which is my point exactly, if we go down th e road to pander to one interest group, then why not all of them? if people feel that they are not being well represented by their elected reps then they can stand themselves or vote for someone else who they feel does best represent them.

    I find it offensive that one particular lobby group (Irish womens council in their submission to the Joint Ctte. on electoral reform) has the audacity to demand that we not only introduce state enforced quota's for female representation, but that a state sponsored fund should be established to promote female politicians! what a joke.

    I have no love for our current political system or its actors, but the idea of implementing by statutory instrument measures to favour one group over the other is tin pot dictatorship territory. The only criteria that should apply to anyone who wants to stand for DE is

    1) hold Irish citizenship
    2) don't be bankrupt or have a criminal record
    3)be resident in the country

    The rest is up to the electorate, for better or worse they decide who gets elected, not shadowy pressure groups or quangos.


  • #126
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    While I'm not in favour of quotas for our political representatives, I don't think things can stay the way they are. We all lose when there are barriers to entry for certain groups in society because that necessarily means that potentially excellent candidates don't make it through. It's the very same as the argument for why we all lose out with global poverty. Think of the hundreds of Einsteins who spend their whole lives working on a farm in sub-Saharan Africa.

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


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    maggy_thatcher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,056 ✭✭✭maggy_thatcher


    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!


  • #128
    invinciblePRSTV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,017 ✭✭✭invinciblePRSTV


    taconnol wrote: »

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

    Why does it have to be specifically barriers for women that have to be identified and removed? like practically every other democracy in western Europe (inc. ones with high and low levels of gender balance) elected office in Ireland is generally the preserve of those from the middle & upper classes, a handful of professions, captains of industry, elite schools and political dynasties.

    Just because its a Gillian Bowler instead of a Brian Lenihan, or an Ivana Bacik rather then an Eamon Ryan, they are still the same people from the same backgrounds making decisions/looking after the same special interests.

    I'm well up for getting more people active in politics full stop and changing the status quo, but introducing gender qoutas and holding it up as a sign of progress when we're stuck with the same old parties and policies, well that's just nonsense.


  • #129
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    invinciblePRSTV wrote: »
    Why does it have to be specifically barriers for women that have to be identified and removed? like practically every other democracy in western Europe (inc. ones with high and low levels of gender balance) elected office in Ireland is generally the preserve of those from the middle & upper classes, a handful of professions, captains of industry, elite schools and political dynasties.
    I don't think anyone is arguing that other barriers, ie those of class and wealth mustn't also be tackled, but I don't see the existence of other barriers as a reason not to tackle gender barriers.

    I do hope as a society we are capable of at least a small bit of multi-tasking - (or maybe we need more women for that :p)


  • #130
    Piste
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,440 ✭✭✭✭Piste


    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.


  • #131
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    donfers
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,006 ✭✭✭donfers


    there should be more women in politics but then again there should be more male primary school teachers and male nurses and female postal workers or refuse collectors

    genders tend to gravitate towards certain roles for a whole variety of reasons and there will always be imbalances in certain professions

    the fact is that as long as there is no legislative barrier impeding people from going for these jobs then you can't really complain


  • #133
    deirdre_dub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭deirdre_dub


    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.


  • #134
    deirdre_dub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭deirdre_dub


    deirdre_dub wrote: »
    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.
    Hmmm - I should probably say a bit more about that.

    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.


  • #135
    Nolanger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,556 ✭✭✭Nolanger


    Yeh, let's have more women TDs, more traveller TDs, more non-national TDs, more non-Catholic TDs...


  • #136
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Nolanger wrote: »
    more non-Catholic TDs...

    If only.


  • #137
    pow wow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,288 ✭✭✭pow wow


    Piste wrote: »
    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 don't think it is necessary. It would be refreshing to see but necessary, I'm not convinced. I don't need people who 'represent' me to be just like me, and if that was a quality that was required for democratic representation then I can't imagine who the current lot are representing :P

    It would be nice of course to have a balance but a quota gets the biggest possible thumbs down from me. Being the 'token women', because that's what they would be in principle, would undermine their position no end.


  • #138
    panda100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,551 ✭✭✭panda100


    Nolanger wrote: »
    Yeh, let's have more women TDs, more traveller TDs, more non-national TDs, more non-Catholic TDs...

    +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.


  • #139
    DublinWriter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,559 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    Reverse Sexism still is still sexism.


  • #140
    DublinWriter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,559 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    panda100 wrote: »
    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.
    World of a difference between encouraging and enforcing.


  • #141
    Nolanger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,556 ✭✭✭Nolanger


    panda100 wrote: »
    Last year we saw the entry into medicine made far easier and radically changed to allow more men to enter the profession.
    Is that true? Thought it was to get more people (including women) who didn't get an A+ result in subjects like Geography because they didn't receive enough grinds or went to a bad school?


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    deirdre_dub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭deirdre_dub


    DublinWriter wrote: »
    Reverse Sexism still is still sexism.
    Since when is it sexist to say that if your profession is representing the people, and your representation of 50% of the people is 20%, there is something wrong with you that needs to be fixed?


  • #143
    goose2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭goose2005


    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.


  • #144
    panda100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,551 ✭✭✭panda100


    Nolanger wrote: »
    Is that true? Thought it was to get more people (including women) who didn't get an A+ result in subjects like Geography because they didn't receive enough grinds or went to a bad school?

    The deans of Irish medical schools made it pretty clear the change was due to gender imbalance.Heres what two of them said:
    Professor of Academic Medicine and Director of Undergraduate Teaching and Learning at Trinity College, Prof Shaun McCann, said one of the aims of changing the entry system to medical school was to adjust the gender balance. “From the [medical] profession’s point of view, a 50/50 mix is desirable,” he said.
    Foundation Head of the Graduate Entry Medical School at the University of Limerick, Prof Paul Finucane, said: “The pendulum had swung too far in favour of females. It’s important we have a system that doesn’t disadvantage males in the way that 40 to 50 years ago, it disadvantaged females.

    I got into medical school through the leaving cert point system ,but I actually do agree with the HPAT system. Its a lot more fairer and a better way to assess ability. However, I find it incredibly sexist and unfair that no effort would be made to alter the rules of entry to a proffession If it was a male dominated one, for example politics.


  • #145
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    I agree, but politics is a different beast to other careers. Qualifications(as we all know) mean squat. Plus someone puts themselves forward and then gets voted by their peers. Rather than quotas, which IMHO are utterly daft for any group in politics, the individual parties must endeavour to groom, support and put forward female candidates. At that point its up to the electorate.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • #146
    Nolanger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,556 ✭✭✭Nolanger


    panda100 wrote: »
    However, I find it incredibly sexist and unfair that no effort would be made to alter the rules of entry to a proffession If it was a male dominated one, for example politics.
    Are they doing the same for courses like occupational therapy and primary teaching or is it just for medicine?


  • #147
    PopUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 236 ✭✭PopUp


    Nolanger wrote: »
    Are they doing the same for courses like occupational therapy and primary teaching or is it just for medicine?

    Yes, the government has an initiative to get more men into primary teaching.

    Medicine is thus far the only course to actually change its entry requirements deliberately because a purely gender-blind admissions system (the CAO) was resulting in 'too many' women though.


  • #148
    ORLY?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 265 ✭✭ORLY?


    PopUp wrote: »
    Yes, the government has an initiative to get more men into primary teaching.

    Medicine is thus far the only course to actually change its entry requirements deliberately because a purely gender-blind admissions system (the CAO) was resulting in 'too many' women though.


    Nonsense. It did work out that way for a year, and many have come out and said that they are happy about it for various reasons.

    It came in with a number of other changes into med entry incluing having to matriculate and get all your points in one year, to make a more fine grained selection process so that the best were actually being selected and to ensure that it wasn't necessary to repeat to get in.

    The HPAT or something in addition to the leaving was inevitable, cut-offs just kept going up. What was it to be in a few years, a lottery between all those on 600?

    Also, it is hard to argue against extra metrics of peoples intelligence, problem solving skills or ability to think under pressure. Take for example someone who gets 575 in the leaving and another who gets 580. That's the difference of one incorrectly answered fill in the blank type question. We already know that both of these people are bright and hard working. Now say 575 aces the HPAT and 580 bombs, might not there be an indication there to suggest that maybe 575 was actually more deserving?


  • #149
    PopUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 236 ✭✭PopUp


    Oh no, I agree the HPAT is a positive step in many ways. I would be in favour of systems of admission for ALL courses that are closer to the US and UK systems - taking into account interviews, essays, extracurricular volunteering, you name it. We can't afford it but it would undoubtedly be a better system than the points race.

    My point is simply that as panda's quotes show, part of the motivation of the HPAT was to give males a boost. There's lots of debate about quotas for women in Ireland and that debate nearly always avoids the fact that such limited special treatment that IS available out there has been to give men, not women, a helping hand.


  • #150
    Nolanger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,556 ✭✭✭Nolanger


    Great, so let's have an HPAT for all future politicians?


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    myflipflops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭myflipflops


    Wibbs wrote: »
    I agree, but politics is a different beast to other careers. Qualifications(as we all know) mean squat. Plus someone puts themselves forward and then gets voted by their peers. Rather than quotas, which IMHO are utterly daft for any group in politics, the individual parties must endeavour to groom, support and put forward female candidates. At that point its up to the electorate.

    This.

    Surely it makes more sense to support initiatives that encourage women to enter politics rather than impose sanctions ensuring that those who run are guaranteed a seat.

    Instead of looking at the number of female politicians, look at the number of candidates. It's not like there is a massive majority of male votes combining to ensure women don't get voted in.


Advertisement