Quotas for Female Politicians in Ireland

Tragedy

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.

What rules?
I decided when I started college this year I'd join
1) The Politics Soc
2) An actual youth wing society(family are staunchly irish, so vacilate between lab/ff/fg every election, and I have no particularly ideology past "They're all equally as bad")

Despite doing a course that can lead to a politics degree, and there being 230 people in my year(with 60% of them being female), I was the only one to join the politics soc, and of the overall membership(there's not many, to be honest) I've only seen one regular female attendee in polsoc.

In my youth wing soc, there's one female first year and two other female members who attend events/meetings regularly. Now, this soc made it quite clear that it was a social soc first, and a political soc second - your political ideology is never questioned or an issue, as long as you're willing to come along, you can believe what you want and say what you want.
But out of around 35 active members, three girls.
Nothings stopping them joining, this is first year in college. There are no what did thaed say? male orientated clothing keeping women down or whatever nonsense, no barriers to entry, nothing stopping girls joining or participating.
They simply aren't interested.

If there aren't enough females willing to get involved in politics, to be blunt, you don't deserve representation.

Welfare Officer and Education officer(the #3 and #2 spot in TCDSU) are both females. Trinity has several female past presidents(Averil Power, Ivana Bacik spring to mind).
Lucinda Creighton was heavily involved in politics when she attended Trinity.

The only thing thats sexist and unfair is your attitude. Want more female politicians? Go out and become one rather than bitching and moaning about how there are so few.

coffee_cake

ORLY? wrote: »

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?

It might help if the LC examiners stopped giving out As like free newspapers.
Points inflation needs to be tackled as well.

Wibbs

Tragedy wrote: »

The only thing thats sexist and unfair is your attitude. Want more female politicians? Go out and become one rather than bitching and moaning about how there are so few.

QFT and +1 to your whole post.

This is a pretty common problem when quotas of any kind crop up. Rather than ask actual real world questions like "why don't more of X do [insert life path here] and how can we tackle that" the answer of forced quotas is offered, which usually does feck all good in the end as more often than not, quality drops. If group X aren't actively prevented from following [life path] yet chose not to, then quotas will do feck all to change that, except as I said drop the quality. In politics this goes double. Why don't more women vote for women? Quite a few studies have shown that more men will vote for a woman. That's as much an issue as women entering politics in the first place. Again ask the question why.

Villette

Tragedy wrote: »

What rules?
I decided when I started college this year I'd join
1) The Politics Soc
2) An actual youth wing society(family are staunchly irish, so vacilate between lab/ff/fg every election, and I have no particularly ideology past "They're all equally as bad")

Despite doing a course that can lead to a politics degree, and there being 230 people in my year(with 60% of them being female), I was the only one to join the politics soc, and of the overall membership(there's not many, to be honest) I've only seen one regular female attendee in polsoc.

In my youth wing soc, there's one female first year and two other female members who attend events/meetings regularly. Now, this soc made it quite clear that it was a social soc first, and a political soc second - your political ideology is never questioned or an issue, as long as you're willing to come along, you can believe what you want and say what you want.
But out of around 35 active members, three girls.
Nothings stopping them joining, this is first year in college. There are no what did thaed say? male orientated clothing keeping women down or whatever nonsense, no barriers to entry, nothing stopping girls joining or participating.
They simply aren't interested.

If there aren't enough females willing to get involved in politics, to be blunt, you don't deserve representation.

Welfare Officer and Education officer(the #3 and #2 spot in TCDSU) are both females. Trinity has several female past presidents(Averil Power, Ivana Bacik spring to mind).
Lucinda Creighton was heavily involved in politics when she attended Trinity.

The only thing thats sexist and unfair is your attitude. Want more female politicians? Go out and become one rather than bitching and moaning about how there are so few.

Your whole post fails to take into the account the simple fact that we live in a society where women are not encouraged to enter poltics or even have much of an interest in it, particularly at a young age. It is a deeply-embedded aspect of society that actually does need to be addressed like the above poster suggested, but I disagree that quotas are not the way. Yes other measures need to be introduced but quotas are needed for the position that our society is in at the moment. When we manage to progress they can then be removed. Positive discrimination is always seen as such a bad thing but it is, I believe, necessary to beat discrimination in the long run. Politics is not only male-dominated, it is male-created and male-centric. If quotas were introduced, women would influence the progression of politics, thereby making it easier for women to enter politics in the future. Real-life examples of women who perhaps haven't had to shed their femininity in order to enter politics would also serve to encourage women - this I think is the key benefit as most examples of successful women are of those who were forced to act like men in order to be taken seriously. (Like Margaret Thatcher) It could even change the whole attitude that women can't even really understand politics because they're too girly.
I am a girl, a very girly girl, and I do not feel that society wants me to be interested or involved in politics unless I decide to cast off my perceived feminine interests. Women are often just as bad as men are for enforcing this notion. I have actually fallen out with friends becuase I'm interested in what they term either 'men-topics' or 'old-person topics'. It is interesting that it's more acceptable for older women to be interested in politics, but it's still a 'man knows best area'.

The rules may not be written down anywhere but they are are very real to many women.

Tragedy

Villette wrote: »

Your whole post fails to take into the account the simple fact that we live in a society where women are not encouraged to enter poltics or even have much of an interest in it, particularly at a young age. It is a deeply-embedded aspect of society that actually does need to be addressed like the above poster suggested, but I disagree that quotas are not the way. Yes other measures need to be introduced but quotas are needed for the position that our society is in at the moment. When we manage to progress they can then be removed. Positive discrimination is always seen as such a bad thing but it is, I believe, necessary to beat discrimination in the long run. Politics is not only male-dominated, it is male-created and male-centric. If quotas were introduced, women would influence the progression of politics, thereby making it easier for women to enter politics in the future. Real-life examples of women who perhaps haven't had to shed their femininity in order to enter politics would also serve to encourage women - this I think is the key benefit as most examples of successful women are of those who were forced to act like men in order to be taken seriously. (Like Margaret Thatcher) It could even change the whole attitude that women can't even really understand politics because they're too girly.
I am a girl, a very girly girl, and I do not feel that society wants me to be interested or involved in politics unless I decide to cast off my perceived feminine interests. Women are often just as bad as men are for enforcing this notion. I have actually fallen out with friends becuase I'm interested in what they term either 'men-topics' or 'old-person topics'. It is interesting that it's more acceptable for older women to be interested in politics, but it's still a 'man knows best area'.

The rules may not be written down anywhere but they are are very real to many women.

Excuse me? Women are not encouraged to enter into politics?
Who encouraged me to join the politics society/party in my college? Who encouraged any of the other people in it?

I don't recall anyone coming up to me saying "You're a man, join our politics society!".

I must be wrong though, because someone on the internet told me my first hand experience in a universities politics soc/youth wings is completely wrong because they have 'friends' who tell them politics is a 'mans topic'.

Definitely.

To be blunt.
Your post smacks of your perceptions and your hang-ups influencing your view of politics. Nothing in it has the smell of reality, experience or logic.
Again, have you tried to get involved in politics? Have you joined a political party, started being an activist, gone out and canvassed?
Or did you tell yourself the big bad men wouldn't let you and didn't even bother to try?

Villette

Tragedy wrote: »

Excuse me? Women are not encouraged to enter into politics?
Who encouraged me to join the politics society/party in my college? Who encouraged any of the other people in it?

I don't recall anyone coming up to me saying "You're a man, join our politics society!".

I must be wrong though, because someone on the internet told me my first hand experience in a universities politics soc/youth wings is completely wrong because they have 'friends' who tell them politics is a 'mans topic'.

Definitely.

So you don't believe in influences in society, or environment, or cultural constructs? Only the literal well you can, nobody is putting you in jail, so therefore I don't give a damn or care to consider the reasons for something? Why do you think women aren't interested in entering politics out of interest? There has to be a reason.

Tragedy

Villette wrote: »

So you don't believe in influences in society, or environment, or cultural constructs? Only the literal well you can, nobody is putting you in jail, so therefore I don't give a damn or care to consider the reasons for something? Why do you think women aren't interested in entering politics out of interest? There has to be a reason.

I do, but I also believe in people playing make believe and blaming society for their lack of interest, time or effort.

You're asking the wrong question. Why are so few people interested in entering politics out of interest?
It's not a female thing, irish people in general have to be among the least politicised in the world. Of the 40% of the 230 people in my degree who happen to be male, I'm also the only male from it who joined the politics soc.

Why is that Villette? Fair enough, no women are interested because The Man Is Keeping Them Down. But why are no men interested? Is The Man Keeping Them Down too?

Is that the secret, only asexual people are allowed into politics?

Villette

Tragedy wrote: »

I do, but I also believe in people playing make believe and blaming society for their lack of interest, time or effort.

You're asking the wrong question. Why are so few people interested in entering politics out of interest?
It's not a female thing, irish people in general have to be among the least politicised in the world. Of the 40% of the 230 people in my degree who happen to be male, I'm also the only male from it who joined the politics soc.

Why is that Villette? Fair enough, no women are interested because The Man Is Keeping Them Down. But why are no men interested? Is The Man Keeping Them Down too?

Is that the secret, only asexual people are allowed into politics?

Ha, hilarious, you'd make a great politician anyway by completely avoiding questions. Ireland may be under-politicised but that still doesn't explain why so few women compared to men enter politics. I didn't ask why so few Irish people enter politics.

Nolanger

Villette wrote: »

Ireland may be under-politicised but that still doesn't explain why so few women compared to men enter politics.

Mary Coughlan isn't doing much to inspire more Irish women to enter politics?

Tragedy

Villette wrote: »

Ha, hilarious, you'd make a great politician anyway by completely avoiding questions. Ireland may be under-politicised but that still doesn't explain why so few women compared to men enter politics. I didn't ask why so few Irish people enter politics.

Avoiding what question? So few people enter political in Ireland that its called a statistically insignificant sample, I.e. no conclusions should be drawn from it.

You've posted absolutely nothing to back up your assertion that women are being kept out other than "there's so few female politicians therefore something must be keeping them out".
That's not logic you have no proof, you have no empirical evidence that something other than females lack of interest in politics is what is keeping them out.

So what question am I meant to be answering? That society and politicians are somehow covertly conspiring to keep females out despite their being no evidence to suggest they are?
Is the question I'm meant. to be answering "How are female politicians managing to be so successful when society and men are keeping them our of politics?". Because yano, there's actual statistical evidence that female politicians poll EXTREMELY well.

I'm at the place where most politicians start their career these days(college) and the only barrier to entry is ladies own disinterest in it.
Argue about society making them that way all you want, the reality is they're far too busy going out 3-5 nights a week(just like the guys) to give a toss about politics.

panda100

Tragedy wrote: »

The only thing thats sexist and unfair is your attitude. Want more female politicians? Go out and become one rather than bitching and moaning about how there are so few.

I really don't like the tone of your post to me so I wont spend a long time replying to it.
I have put forward arguments in favour of gender quota's, how is that 'bitching and moaning'? I dont think you have actually read any of my posts on this thread so theres no point entering a discussion with you. (I'm an active member of the Socialist Party and I was very active in UCD student politics btw)

I am not actually massively in favour of gender quota's. What baffles me is why people are so vehemently opposed to them? Its not like the voting system is particularly fantastic at the moment, with limited choice of candidates in many areas.

Wibbs

panda100 wrote: »

I am not actually massively in favour of gender quota's. What baffles me is why people are so vehemently opposed to them?

I'm opposed to them because IMH they lower the bar. By very definition they lower the bar, the results of such quotas are going to be less respected regardless of how good they are and the choice of the electorate is reduced when a candidate is essentially foisted upon them by dint of being part of a quota. BTW I don't like the idea of the quota for men in medicine either. You can either qualify and do the job or you can't. If you can't, tough. If women are better doctors then cool, I want women doctors. I don't want some bloke working on me who got in because they were making up numbers. Similarly I don't want some woman on my voting card for the same reason.

Tragedy

panda100 wrote: »

I really don't like the tone of your post to me so I wont spend a long time replying to it.
I have put forward arguments in favour of gender quota's, how is that 'bitching and moaning'? I dont think you have actually read any of my posts on this thread so theres no point entering a discussion with you. (I'm an active member of the Socialist Party and I was very active in UCD student politics btw)

I did read your posts. Here are a few things that spring out:

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?

Equating entry to medicine which requires a leaving cert, with entry to politics that requires a....what test does entering politics require that it's keeping a segment of society out?

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.

It's sexist and unfair that no effort is being made to alter the rules of entry of politics.
What rules of entry that should be altered? Quotes don't alter the rules of entry.
How are the rules sexist?
How are the rules unfair?

I am not actually massively in favour of gender quota's. What baffles me is why people are so vehemently opposed to them? Its not like the voting system is particularly fantastic at the moment, with limited choice of candidates in many areas.

Based on the quote above, you seem quite in favour of quotes because it's so sexist and unfair that it isn't being made easier(how is it hard?) to enter into politics as a female.

Smacks of entitlement is all.

PS: To answer some other peoples posts in this thread, did you have to wear a mans suit to join SWP? Did you have to pretend to be a man? What hoops did you have to jump through to join as a hated despicable female?

None? None at all? Shocking

rainbow kirby

Tragedy - Politics or Humanities would be more suitable forums for the sort of debate you seek.

Tragedy

What kind of debate am I seeking? People are posting about barriers to entry into politics for females and how things should be changed to remove these barriers, I'm posting first hand knowledge of the (lack) of barriers to entry.

I didn't know disagreeing with A female point of view was frowned upon, seeing as how several females on this thread have argued against quotas.

Link to Charter, I don't see how I'm breaking it as "Disagreeing with a females point of view and defending your position" isn't on it.

rainbow kirby

It's mostly your posting style that is the problem, rather than your content. Overly aggressive debate belongs elsewhere.

Let me remind you of the Ladies Lounge charter:

Keep things civil. No name calling, personal abuse, unneccessary aggression, snide comments, or backseat moderating.

and

Ok. We need to be clear about what this Forum is for.

First and foremost, Welcome.

Welcome to who exactly?

Well, everybody who uses Boards.ie. As many of you may well know, the female users of Boards are a minority and it seems we have no forum to go to to talk about our everday issues or just to have a general discussion without the usual crap like - 'Get back in the kitchen' and 'What are you wearin', Etc.
We all know that it is said in jest, but it can get a bit tiresome.

We don't want it to be a really serious place with no joking but you must also bear in mind that it is a place primarily for Women or any other user to post without fear of being out numbered by a majoritively mysogynistic viewpoint. If it is a genuine discussion with alternative viewpoints, then that's great. Of course it wouldn't be much of a discussion otherwise, but if it descends into complete Woman bashing silliness, the thread may get locked or sent to a more appropriate Forum.

Otherwise, We hope you will enjoy your stay

Tragedy

rainbow kirby wrote: »

It's mostly your posting style that is the problem, rather than your content. Overly aggressive debate belongs elsewhere.

Let me remind you of the Ladies Lounge charter:


and

That's great, but feel free to put on your Mod Hat, PM me(or infract) a couple of quotes that bother you so we can discuss this further off the thread and I can take further action if needed, as your post appears to be just blatant sexism in the guise of modship.

Wibbs

OK, lets dial this back a smidgen. Breath a bit. At least until morning(and god love me I've never used the word smidgen before and hope never to do so again ) In the morrow we'll come back to the thread and hopefully have a continuing good and informative thread on the subject.

TL;DR? I'm old, it's way past my bedtime, so let me recover a bit. On ye're head be it if I don't get my beauty sleep

pickarooney

rainbow kirby wrote: »

It's mostly your posting style that is the problem, rather than your content. Overly aggressive debate belongs elsewhere.

Is this maybe part of an answer to the overriding question? Politics is as much about aggressive debating as anything. You need to be a certain type of person to want to get involved in what would appear to many to be a lot of shouting and peacocking for no discernible purpose.

Maybe a more appropriate question is why do people get involved in politics? Are any of the reasons compelling for the average Irish woman?

LittleBook

pickarooney wrote: »

Maybe a more appropriate question is why do people get involved in politics? Are any of the reasons compelling for the average Irish woman?

I think that's an excellent question! Why does anyone get involved in politics.

The most apparent reason is following in a parents footsteps, which is common in any line of work.

But obviously there are other reasons ... want to change things? want to be influential? want to be famous? ...

pickarooney

LittleBook wrote: »

I think that's an excellent question! Why does anyone get involved in politics.

The most apparent reason is following in a parents footsteps, which is common in any line of work.

But obviously there are other reasons ... want to change things? want to be influential? want to be famous? ...

Maybe this - some people want to be famous no matter what, others want to be famous and liked.

PopUp

pickarooney wrote: »

Maybe a more appropriate question is why do people get involved in politics?

Jeremy Paxman wrote a book a couple of years ago that basically said they all have personality disorders. It's ego combined with incredible insecurity. It was about MPs but if anything our system is worse. Who the hell wants to do the funeral handshaking, constituency pothole-filling, endless meetings and backslapping and sucking up. Seriously what kind of person gets fulfillment from that?

And at least in the UK, you can identify clearly with 'Labour' or 'Conservative' and make a fist of why you believe in one approach above the other. Likewise with US politics. I was president of the student's union in college but my only involvement with 'grown-up' politics has been while living in the States, where there were opportunities to take genuine political stances like Prop 8 and Obama vs. McCain/Palin. Whereas here really the only reason to get passionate about Fianna Fail vs. Fine Gael has been for a long time, your family ties.

Now admittedly the present situation is different and look how the Politics and Economy board has exploded in popularity recently. There is lots of political interest in Ireland. But I don't know that our major parties (even Labour) are set up to harness that. I don't think they WANT to harness it. They want to be about identity, not ideology. And that keeps them a closed shop.

panda100

From what I saw in UCD politics I would have to agree with a lot of what Jeremy Paxman said. Many of those involved in youth wings were quite socially retarded people who outside of politics would not have been very popular.

The media tries and paints women as backstabbing each other, 'frenemies', and 'bitches' but in my experience its a lot easier for women to make friends than men. The friendships that women do form tend to be more long lasting rather than the transient nature of male friendships. I think this is importnat as women have a lot less desire to be popular than men,because they form deeper friendships more easily.
Politics, as it stands at the moment, really is just a big popularity contest.For a lot of men in politics they would never ever achieve this popularity through normal social circles. How many politicans would you actually want to be mates with?

I also do think there is a lack fo confidence in women to put themseleves forwards for a public position.This is not an innate low self esteem but something that is harnessed by market forces from a young age telling us we don't look good enough.

coffee_cake

panda100 wrote: »

The media tries and paints women as backstabbing each other, 'frenemies', and 'bitches' but in my experience its a lot easier for women to make friends than men. The friendships that women do form tend to be more long lasting rather than the transient nature of male friendships. I think this is importnat as women have a lot less desire to be popular than men,because they form deeper friendships more easily. .

What

Wibbs

Yea sorry I have to say "what " too. It's as much down to individuals, but to suggest that women aren't as socially competitive as men? I dunno what planet you're living on. They can be incredibly socially competitive. IME women, especially young women, have very dynamic relationships with their friends by comparison to men. Men are generally more staid and status quo in their thinking. An average group of 6 say 22 year old men who know each other, will tend to have a lot less internal group drama than the equivalent group of women. They're more likely to socially freeze out one in the group too. Social bullying is far more common in girls schools than in boys schools. Plus the idea that men don't form deep bonds with other men is just as daft as suggesting women are all bitches to each other. Utter nonsense on both counts.

Lockstep

A point which is being neglected is that politics encompasses a much wider variety of posts than just elected office: judges (who interpret the laws of our Constitution) often have a much greater impact on our lives than 90% of politicians, as do lawyers who argue the cases allowing the judge to interpret. I'm not sure of what the exact numbers are for female lawyers, but I'm a law student myself and I'd say the course is roughly 50/50. We're also a nation that has given the world Mary Robinson, which is no mean feat.

Then there's a myriad of other jobs in politics which are there for those who don't want to be councillors or TDs; political consultants, strategists, policy writers, assistants, PR, economists and so on.

It takes a very specific type of person to get involved in politics, one crucial one being that you have to be able to take a lot of abuse from voters. This is something unappealing to most people. Myself included.

panda100 wrote: »

From what I saw in UCD politics I would have to agree with a lot of what Jeremy Paxman said. Many of those involved in youth wings were quite socially retarded people who outside of politics would not have been very popular.

If you lack social skills, being part of a political society won't make you popula within politics either.
If you're going to be any good at political life in general (canvassing for example) then being socially-retarded you're pretty screwed from the get-go.
Political societies are like any other society and will also attract those joining in an attempt to find friends. Is not, nor should it be a problem, as joining a society for companionship is pretty part and parcel of university life. Writing them off as 'socially retarded' is fairly simplistic.

Likewise, Students Unions are heavily populated by those from political societies (which frankly often comes from careerism). My own experience being that the candidates with the best policies lose out whereas those who are charismatic are able to convince students to vote for them.

I know it's your own opinion and based on anecdotal evidence but it's a fairly oversimplified and snide post.


As for the idea that popularity can come from politics, I remain extremely sceptical of this. You're never going to make everyone happy in politics so joining a profession where you have jugs of water thrown on you/dogs set on you for your political pesuasion isn't much help.

Zulu

panda100 wrote: »

Many of those involved in youth wings were quite socially retarded people who outside of politics would not have been very popular.

That makes no sence. By it's very nature politics attracts socially capable people! If it didn't noone would vote for them.

...but in my experience its a lot easier for women to make friends than men.

What? I'd suggest that making friends is an individual thing, not genetic.

The friendships that women do form tend to be more long lasting rather than the transient nature of male friendships.

Seriously? Male friendships are of a transient nature? That simply isn't true.

Madness!

Ickle Magoo

Yeah, I'd have to say I know the odd politician and my friend stood as an independent at the last election and they are certainly charismatic, intelligent and interesting people. On a scale of social retardation, they would have to be less afflicted than most, just to be able to function in basic local politics - never mind further up the tree.

I don't like gender quotas and I don't see the point of them. Most of the male politicians are very aware of their female electorate, their wives, sisters, daughters and don't view politics as somewhere to further male initiatives at the expense of females so really, the best person for the job should get the job - I'm not sure how gender quotas are even implementable in a democratic voting system, would they insist that a certain percentage of candidates were female regardless of whomever else wanted to stand? Sounds ridiculous.

As for why there isn't more women in politics? It's bitchy and aggressive - and that's just your moany constituents...your peers would snatch your job as soon as look at you, the media swing between castigation and ridicule, half the time it's about knocking on doors, kissing babies and sucking up to people and the rest is arguing and taking every opportunity to knock the opposition & them you. Out of the numerous career paths I could/can follow, I just don't view politics as a very attractive career choice.

I don't doubt that politicians can enter politics with an idealistic view of changing the world for the better but there is just so many more pleasant ways of doing it - not that I can stand for election here anyway, you'll be pleased to know, so there'll be none of them foreigners taking your dáil seats.

Villette

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't like gender quotas and I don't see the point of them. Most of the male politicians are very aware of their female electorate, their wives, sisters, daughters and don't view politics as somewhere to further male initiatives at the expense of females so really, the best person for the job should get the job - I'm not sure how gender quotas are even implementable in a democratic voting system, would they insist that a certain percentage of candidates were female regardless of whomever else wanted to stand? Sounds ridiculous.

As for why there isn't more women in politics? It's bitchy and aggressive - and that's just your moany constituents...your peers would snatch your job as soon as look at you, the media swing between castigation and ridicule, half the time it's about knocking on doors, kissing babies and sucking up to people and the rest is arguing and taking every opportunity to knock the opposition & them you. Out of the numerous career paths I could/can follow, I just don't view politics as a very attractive career choice.

This is my point exactly though.....politics isn't an attractive career path for women and that needs to change. You can't just sit back and say it's more suited to men so leave them at it when they create the legislation that governs the whole country. Whether you agree with quotas or not this must be addressed.
Also, suggesting that men have women in mind is shockingly paternalistic - women need to stand up for themselves, not have a man do the thinking for them.

pickarooney

Do or did politicians ever actually kiss babies or where does that expression come from? I've often heard it but it sounds very weird.