Quotas for Female Politicians in Ireland

Dravokivich

Coming a bit late on this... have caught the general gist of what's been discussed the last couple of pages, more so the mention of motivation of the individual, then the gender that's holding them back.

Personally, that would be my simple view on it also.

But if you really want to have a gender based quota brought in and enforced, how can you say you are pro-equal rights?

To me that's discrimination. It's forcing a woman into a job purely based on gender and making up the numbers.

From what I can gather, Ireland in general isn't all that shy about female politicians, there's always been a pivitol role played by a female politician through out the years, so where exactly is the issue?

I don't judge a politician's merits based on what they've got in their pants, I'd have to agree with their agenda to vote for them, man or woman.

Zulu

I understood that sort of passive aggressive sarcasm wasn't appreciated in the ladies lounge?

Silverfish

seenitall, there's no need for the aggressive tone, can we please try to keep this discussion civil.

Thank you.

Silverfish

Zulu wrote: »

I understood that sort of passive aggressive sarcasm wasn't appreciated in the ladies lounge?

It's likely a mod did not see it in the 7 minutes between it being posted, and your response, in future, if you use the report post button, it will bring the post to the attention of a mod faster. I personally left work at 4.30 and only got in now, so that's probably why it was missed. Thanks!

seenitall

Ooops... hopefully I'm not in breach of the charter, gonna check it out right now. Having a bit of an irritable day, admittedly

Sarcasm - yes, passive-agressive... I wouldn't say so. It's a pretty obvious post, isn't it?

EDIT: Just seen the warning, sorry! I will remove my post, actually. I am sure there will be others making the point I wanted to make in a less agressive manner.

Dravokivich

i'd read it before it was removed, honestly didn't take any offense to it but understand you guys here have a way you prefer things to be clearly percieved.

seenitall- generally i prefer not to get lost in things by trying to keep what i say short and concise. i believe what.you were hinting to in your responce is a matter of perception.

if you really feel it needs to be expanded from what i said, i'll put something a bit more detailed together later, but i recon it'll only drag the topic as opposed to generally discussing the subject.

Ickle Magoo

Villette wrote: »

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.

I don't think you understood my point.

I don't just sit back and say it's better suited for men, I'm perfectly happy knowing a life in politics is better suited to people who aren't me - what gender they happen to be is neither here nor there. I don't see how politics is any different to pathology in not appealing to everyone, for obvious reasons.

Politicians do not only represent those in their electorate that they share gender with - irrespective of whether 50% of politicians are male or 85%, issues that are important to men and women in the general populace will by definition be regarded as important issues to their respective politicians. Politicians are representatives of all their electorate, after all - do you honestly think Mary White or Mary Harney only do the thinking for their female electorate? So why do you seem convinced male politicians would be any different?

Lastly, politicians of either gender do not have carte blanch to create legislation willy-nilly, they have manifestos and are democratically elected with their political intentions in full view; we even have to vote for or against specific constitutional changes. If any irish politician were to campaign for, far less introduce, misogynistic legislation they are going to have the worlds shortest political career. I think the paranoid view that only female politicians are capable of considering or caring about issues that effect women is patently ridiculous as is the idea that dáil seats must be split evenly between men & women in order that it govern effectively for both sexes.

pickarooney wrote: »

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_kissing

A lá

much baby kissing

Lockstep

Villette wrote: »

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.

Politics in the sense this thread is talking about (elected office) is not an attractive career choice to me either, and I'm a male. It takes a very specific type of person who can survive in politics.


Secondly, there's nothing paternalistic about what Ickle Magoo said. We live in a representative democracy so we choose who our representatives are. For example, I'm in my 20s and there's not a single member of the Dáil below the age of 30. The idea behind electing someone to the Dáil is that they represent all their constituents; men, women, youngsters, pensioners, homosexuals, heterosexuals, old Irish, new Irish, Gaeilgoirs and so on. That's representative democracy in action.

Villette

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Politics in the sense this thread is talking about (elected office) is not an attractive career choice to me either, and I'm a male. It takes a very specific type of person who can survive in politics.


Secondly, there's nothing paternalistic about what Ickle Magoo said. We live in a representative democracy so we choose who our representatives are. For example, I'm in my 20s and there's not a single member of the Dáil below the age of 30. The idea behind electing someone to the Dáil is that they represent all their constituents; men, women, youngsters, pensioners, homosexuals, heterosexuals, old Irish, new Irish, Gaeilgoirs and so on. That's representative democracy in action.

Working in theory is not the same as working in practice.
You're right that it takes a specific type of person to survive in politics - what I'm arguing is that the specific type of person is usually male. I believe that politics needs to be completely shaken up if it's ever to achieve full representation or achieve the closest form of true democracy. The system we have orginated with white, rich, upper class and then upper middle class men. For example, I think there are barriers agianst people, male and female, who don't have much money. It takes money to start a campaign, especially if you don't want to join the established boys' clubs and stand as an independent. Democracy as it stands doesn't work, it's just the best idea we have at the moment!

Ickle Magoo

Villette wrote: »

It takes money to start a campaign, especially if you don't want to join the established boys' clubs and stand as an independent.

Have you stood yourself? My friend was 17 votes off being elected as an independent in the last election and he barely has two coins to rub together - enough people liked what he was proposing to push for in politics that he got the funding - that's democracy.

Villette

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Have you stood yourself? My friend was 17 votes off being elected as an independent in the last election and he barely has two coins to rub together - enough people liked what he was proposing to push for in politics that he got the funding - that's democracy.

No I haven't, I'm still in University. There are plenty of men giving opinions on women in politics so I think I'm entitled to an opinion when I don't have first hand experience.
And talking about exceptions doesn't prove anything - of course it's possible to enter politics, the issue is to do with barriers.

Ickle Magoo

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, I'm just wondering what basis you have for making some of the claims you are making.

What barriers are we talking about? Had I the enthusiasm and the policies my friend was pushing then I or any other woman could enter politics. I appreciate there are far less women in politics than men but I have yet to see any evidence that supports the claim that the imbalance is caused by women who want to be politicians being prevented from entering or succeeding in the political arena.

Stheno

Villette wrote: »

No I haven't, I'm still in University. There are plenty of men giving opinions on women in politics so I think I'm entitled to an opinion when I don't have first hand experience.
And talking about exceptions doesn't prove anything - of course it's possible to enter politics, the issue is to do with barriers.

Have you gotten involved in any of the political parties/societies in college?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, I'm just wondering what basis you have for making some of the claims you are making.

What barriers are we talking about? Had I the enthusiasm and the policies my friend was pushing then I or any other woman could enter politics. I appreciate there are far less women in politics than men but I have yet to see any evidence that supports the claim that the imbalance is caused by women who want to be politicians being prevented from entering or succeeding in the political arena.

I agree, I was very involved in politics from year one in college, joined a party, got involved in the debating societies (which imo are a bit of a hotbed of politics) worked on campaigns, eventually got involved at constituency level, and did work there.

I never felt that my being female was a disadvantage, there was a common interest (i.e. the political beliefs) but plenty of discussion where individuals had differing ideas as opposed to everyone toeing the party line. It was fascinating working on different campaigns, gaining insight into how the political system works, and I learned a lot, most importantly to respect people's beliefs regardless of how different they were from mine.

It also gave me great insight into the life of a politician at student, local and national level, it's not a life I would ever want, but there were no barriers to entry for me as a woman into getting to experience politics, the good, bad and the ugly.

The one point that I would possibly concede that you have made is in relation to background, as a youngster, my parents saw me as able to achieve anything I wanted, and encouraged that, gender never ever came into the equation.

Reward

When women seek out careers in politics in the same numbers and with the same dedication that men do there will be equal representation.

I cant stand the idea of quotas, especially if they lead to a glut of ideology driven feminist women in government like in the UK.

Lockstep

Villette wrote: »

Working in theory is not the same as working in practice.

There's nothing theoretical about elected politicians representing their constituencies. It's how well they represent their electorate that is the issue.
It's also utterly theoretical to assume that women would inherently do a better job in representing their constituents than men do.
Ask the women of Donegal South-West how their breast cancer treatment centre is doing, despite having the Tánaiste as a local TD.

Villette wrote: »

You're right that it takes a specific type of person to survive in politics - what I'm arguing is that the specific type of person is usually male. I believe that politics needs to be completely shaken up if it's ever to achieve full representation or achieve the closest form of true democracy. The system we have orginated with white, rich, upper class and then upper middle class men. For example, I think there are barriers agianst people, male and female, who don't have much money. It takes money to start a campaign, especially if you don't want to join the established boys' clubs and stand as an independent.

Yes, and these barriers are also there for myriads of other members of society; immigrants, young people, the poor, LGBTs, non-Anglophones, those with a dubious family history and so on. Should we have quota systems for all of these as well?
If your logic is 'only someone like me can represent me' then we'd need much, much more than 166 TDs.

Men aren't any more or less capable than women are at politics. For every Joan Burton there's a Beverly Cooper-Flynn.

Villette wrote: »

Democracy as it stands doesn't work, it's just the best idea we have at the moment!

Define what you mean when referring to a political system that 'works'

Villette wrote: »

No I haven't, I'm still in University. There are plenty of men giving opinions on women in politics so I think I'm entitled to an opinion when I don't have first hand experience.
And talking about exceptions doesn't prove anything - of course it's possible to enter politics, the issue is to do with barriers.

That's really no excuse. One of my local councillors is a mature student, whereas the mayor of a neighbouring town was a young woman who was also attending university. Likewise, 2 of my friends ran as candidates in the GE selection process, both are also university students.
University is an excellent time to get involved with politics, it's why pretty much every university and most ITs have youth branches for political parties.

I haven't seen anyone telling you that you're not entitled to your opinion but others are just as entitled to disagree and debate with your opinions.

Ickle Magoo

Reward wrote: »

... especially if they lead to a glut of ideology driven feminist women in government like in the UK.

You've peaked my curiosity - could you name the politicians your refer to and what they've done to warrant that claim please. :cool:

Reward

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You've peaked my curiosity - could you name the politicians your refer to and what they've done to warrant that claim please. :cool:

I'm talking about the glut of misandrists in the Labour government. There are many misandrist policies, unequal laws, human rights violations and frauds that they support.

The closure of female prisons was a hugely misandrist move that failed. The sex trafficking fraud, legal inequality in the family courts, gendered domestic violence myth, wage gap fraud. The UK are soon to remove the presumption of innocence for men that are accused of rape... and so on.

In the interests of gender equality, civil and human rights, its as important to keep ideological feminists out of government.

Ickle Magoo

No you said

a glut of ideology driven feminist women in government like in the UK

With there being, in your own words, a glut of ideology driven feminist women in government to choose from there shouldn't be an issue naming several and what they've done rather indulging in the rather unattractive random generic ranting, which does rather detract from being able to take your point seriously....I await your specific answer with great anticipation. :cool:

Reward

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No you said



With there being, in your own words, a glut of ideology driven feminist women in government to choose from there shouldn't be an issue naming several and what they've done rather indulging in the rather unattractive random generic ranting, which does rather detract from being able to take your point seriously....I await your specific answer with great anticipation. :cool:

Ah, well no. We are both likely aware of who these people are and the controversial and misandrist legislation that they are responsible for, either that or its you that has the information gap. My listing them by name has little to do with anything, its just something that you said along the lines of, "If you don't do x for me then, y is invalid" in a condescending tone, nonsense.

I'd say the same thing about religious or any sort of fundamentalist group in government that threaten womens rights or anyone else's rights.

Ickle Magoo

No, no I'm not aware, enlighten me please. It's a simple question to a specific claim you made - if you can't support the claim then stop being intellectually dishonest - verging on paranoid fantasy land - and retract it.

Reward

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, no I'm not aware, enlighten me please. It's a simple question to a specific claim you made - if you can't support the claim then stop being intellectually dishonest - verging on paranoid fantasy land - and retract it.

No, I won't be doing that because of your tone and you're being deliberately obtuse, if not get on google and find out who the labour women were behind the move to have womens prisons shut down or follow up on one of the other examples I gave you.


73% of the women in the recent New Labour government are feminists http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Journal_Samples/PONL0263-3957~21~3~149/149.pdf

Quotas in gov. usually mean positions for radical feminists and radical feminists represent the views of a tiny minority and seek to represent women as opposed to the people.

Ickle Magoo

You are still quite deliberately shirking away from answering a very simple question based on the specific claims that you brought to this discussion. If you make the claim the onus is on you to support that claim, instead you are embarrassing yourself by insisting I research the claim you made.

If offering up a single hastily snatched paper from 2001 in which a number of female politicians identify themselves as feminists (proponents of sexual equality) and beyond your own hysterical gibbering there is no mention of "radical" anything is the best you can do when making outlandish hyperbolic claims about female politicians in the Ladies Lounge, kindly refrain from posting.

Reward

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You are still quite deliberately shirking away from answering a very simple question based on the specific claims that you brought to this discussion. If you make the claim the onus is on you to support that claim, instead you are embarrassing yourself by insisting I research the claim you made.

If offering up a single hastily snatched paper from 2001 in which a number of female politicians identify themselves as feminists (proponents of sexual equality) and beyond your own hysterical gibbering there is no mention of "radical" anything is the best you can do when making outlandish hyperbolic claims about female politicians in the Ladies Lounge, kindly refrain from posting.

Ickle Magoo

Thats twice now you have tried to use, "if you don't fulfill x goal for me than y is invalid", you claim Ive embarrassed myself by publishing a source thats backs up what I said and you are making veiled personal attacks and threats of censorship. You are demonstrating another reason why I think that feminists should not be in gov.in influential numbers- the over reliance on fallacious arguments.

Look, a quick goggle revealed the media embarrassing itself by reporting facts and outlandish hyperbole..

Quotas that have benefited mainly feminists

http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/wvon/2010/09/labour-mps-vote-to-enforce-31-quota-of-women-for-shadow-cabinet/

Move to shut down female prisons

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6444961.stm

Sex trafficking fraud

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1227418/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-The-myth-Britains-foreign-sex-slaves.html

Low rape conviction rate fraud

http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/how-panic-over-rape-was-orchestrated

Wage gap fraud

http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/gender-inequality-its-jungle-out-there

Feel free to make irrational arguments - attack the source, move the goal posts, personal attack .. you know yourself.

Lockstep

Reward wrote: »

No, I won't be doing that because of your tone and you're being deliberately obtuse, if not get on google and find out who the labour women were behind the move to have womens prisons shut down or follow up on one of the other examples I gave you.


73% of the women in the recent New Labour government are feminists http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Journal_Samples/PONL0263-3957~21~3~149/149.pdf

Quotas in gov. usually mean positions for radical feminists and radical feminists represent the views of a tiny minority and seek to represent women as opposed to the people.

Feminism and radical feminism are completely separate things. If 73% of politicians are feminists, that's great (although ideally it would be 100%)
If 73% are radical feminists that's a bit dodgy.

Ickle Magoo

Oh goody, generic googled sources and the daily mail, no less - none of which mention anything regarding that glut of female politicians acting improperly...and then the hilariously ironic accusation that others are using fallacious argument. :pac:

Reward, to further embarrass yourself and to ensure I don't write your posts off as rabid misogynistic hyperbole once and for all - perhaps you could read a source of my own:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

Reward

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Feminism and radical feminism are completely separate things. If 73% of politicians are feminists, that's great (although ideally it would be 100%)
If 73% are radical feminists that's a bit dodgy.

Yeah, a section of the labour gov. is openly hostile to the rights of men. Another controversial move was undoing the crime of passion defense in spousal murder for men while introducing a spousal homicide defense for women that can be used if she claims that she "felt fear". No evidence is necessary or actual physical abuse has to have taken place to use the defense.

Sorry about the source (daily mail) there is a bit about that and other bigoted policies that labour feminism supports.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1039445/Erin-Pizzey-champion-womens-rights-says-radical-feminist-plans-let-victims-domestic-abuse-away-murder-affront-morality.html


India has a quota system in place, 33% of gov seats are not going to a broad range of women, but radical feminists.

Ickle Magoo

Reward wrote: »

Yeah, a section of the labour gov. is openly hostile to the rights of men.

"The labour government"?

Hint: The UK doesn't have a labour government.

Reward

kickoutthejams wrote: »

. If 73% of politicians are feminists, that's great (although ideally it would be 100%)

If 3/3 of politicians are gynocentric and believe in myths like gendered abuse and so on it and would be great and if all politician were it would be ideal?

Thats like saying that we should a 100% catholic, scientologist or muslim government. Governments should be democratic and secular. We cant have governments that run on dogmatic ideology, we should resist that all costs. What you are talking about is a dictatorship.

Lockstep

Reward wrote: »

If 3/3 of politicians are gynocentric and believe in myths like gendered abuse and so on it and would be great and if all politician were it would be ideal?

Thats like saying that we should a 100% catholic, scientologist or muslim government. Governments should be democratic and secular. We cant have governments that run on dogmatic ideology, we should resist that all costs. What you are talking about is a dictatorship.

You really need to learn the difference between feminism and radical feminist.
I'm a male and a feminist. I'm not a radical feminist.

If 100% of government officials believe in the need for establishing and protecting the rights of women, are you honestly comparing that to them needing to be 100% Catholic or Muslim?

Lockstep

Reward wrote: »

Yeah, a section of the labour gov. is openly hostile to the rights of men. Another controversial move was undoing the crime of passion defense in spousal murder for men while introducing a spousal homicide defense for women that can be used if she claims that she "felt fear". No evidence is necessary or actual physical abuse has to have taken place to use the defense.

Sorry about the source (daily mail) there is a bit about that and other bigoted policies that labour feminism supports.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1039445/Erin-Pizzey-champion-womens-rights-says-radical-feminist-plans-let-victims-domestic-abuse-away-murder-affront-morality.html


India has a quota system in place, 33% of gov seats are not going to a broad range of women, but radical feminists.

First of all, Labour aren't in government. the Tories/Liberals are.

Secondly, that's a section who believe in the *need* for protecting the rights of women. That doesn't mean a section believe that these need to be established at the expense of men. That's an extre e form of feminism.

Also; the Daily Mail? My personal favourite headline of theirs was "Asylum Seekers...living in our trees" when I read it in February. Then again, it was once a supporter of fascism so I still have little time for it.
At any rate did you notice it kept referencing "extreme feminism","radical feminism" and so on. Even the Daily Fail recognizes the distinction between 'feminism' and 'extreme feminism'.

For example, I believe in gay rights, that doesn't mean I want their rights at the expense of everyone else. But you seem to lump in everyone on the same political spectrum.