Gender Quotas: A simple solution to Irish political corruption and croneyism

T runner

Croneyism, corruption, lazy and unethical politics were an essential link in the chain that allowed the government, with help from banks, to lead us into our present predicament. This is a predicament we are not out of yet with bond markets predicting a more absolute default for Ireland a few years down the road and the spread on Irish bonds as high as ever as of today.

Will making vague angry demands to politicians achieve an end to this poison of corruption and lack of ethics in our political system? The chances of success are low i think.

Fianna Fail are a beast evolved in the environment that is our political system.
Surgically removing FF, although necessary will not rid us of these poison which our system facilitates.

Is there a way to radically fastrack this process of decontamination?

If we look at the Corruption Transparancy Index we see that 4 out of the to 5 countries (least corruption) have a high percentage of Female parliamentarians. Atleast 3 of these countries used quotas to get their figures of female representaion up initially.

Would forcing quotas on all parties destroy the croneyism, corruption, and old boys clubs by removing barriers for men and women normally not meeting the "club" requirements?

If this is so is it conceivable that a gender policy brought in 15 years ago would have saved us from this crises by eliminating the dodgy practices of government?

This is not to suggest that females are less corrupt than males, rather that gender balance eliminates old boys and girls clubs and croneyism.

This is not going to develop organically, in my view it will either happen by quotas or we will be here in 30 years time with 87% males in the dail and transparent government still an issue.

Is it that women just dont like politics as much as men. Well 40% + women like politcs well enough to be MPs in the Nordic countries arguably the most socially sophistcated in the world.

Only 4% of women like politics in Turkey apparently.

Remember in 2010 Ireland there is still no child care facilities in Dail Eireann!!!

If your reply is: why havent the women organised it?...Ill remind you again of 87%-13% ratio. You will also have answered the question as to why child care, social policies etc are non existant in Ireland. Answer: The male TDs like you, leave that stuff to the women.........

(can we stick to debating issues rather than personally attacking people/politicians for or against these policies)

the groutch

female TDs might be less corrupt, but they're not necessarily any more competent, just look at the 3 Marys

Soldie

What essentialist tripe. A gender quota is an utterly ridiculous idea; we should vote for people based on their own merit, not because they're male or female, black or white, gay or straight, or otherwise.

LOL. Still going on about this?

How exactly would croneyism and corruption be eradicated due to gender quotas? What makes you think these women would come from anywhere besides the usual places (political families etc)?


Oh I get your argument.. "It just would". Fair enough.

southsiderosie

A large number of women in politics are members of political dynasties. Would it really make a difference if there was a Bridgid Lenihan rather than a Brian Lenihan in the Dail?

I don't buy the idea that more women in government will make government better. More people in government who are ethical and care about the national interest and not parish pump political nonsense will make the government better. The behavior of politicians is a reflection of both political institutions and the expectations of citizens, not gender. Female politicians can be just as awful, if not more so, than their male counterparts.

T runner

the groutch wrote: »

female TDs might be less corrupt, but they're not necessarily any more competent, just look at the 3 Marys

Thats true, they may be roughly equally competent or corrupt perhaps. However a parliament with a balance of 70:30 between the 2 genders seems to be less corrupt than those of pre-dominance of one sex. They are obviously more representative of people and issues: eg we can assert with certainty that in a Dail of 30% + women, childcare would be radically different in this country to what it is now. Care of children is quite important, we have failed very badly here in the past.

Soldie wrote: »

What essentialist tripe. A gender quota is an utterly ridiculous idea; we should vote for people based on their own merit, not because they're male or female, black or white, gay or straight, or otherwise.

It was not ridiculous for the Nordic countries which have the most progressive societies in the world, a point youve conveniently ignored. We vote for men and women in equal numbers. This has nothing to do with it. The problem is that only 13% of females make it to the polling card.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

LOL. Still going on about this?

It certainly seems that way....

How exactly would croneyism and corruption be eradicated due to gender quotas? What makes you think these women would come from anywhere besides the usual places (political families etc)?

Becuase that has not been the experience of other countries who introduced quotas such as the nordic countries and indeed Rwanda.

Oh I get your argument.. "It just would". Fair enough.

I didnt make that argument. You just misrepresented me by claiming i did. If you are not capable of intelligently arguing with points ive made, please dont stupidly argue with points i havent made.

southsiderosie wrote: »

A large number of women in politics are members of political dynasties. Would it really make a difference if there was a Bridgid Lenihan rather than a Brian Lenihan in the Dail?

It is not possible to draw enough candidates from political dynasties. In the long run parties will have to alter their culture to make them more attractive to potential female politicians. This has been the experience of the other countries that have introduced quotas. Sweden for example now has an extremely transparent efficient political system.

I don't buy the idea that more women in government will make government better. More people in government who are ethical and care about the national interest and not parish pump political nonsense will make the government better.

Parties being forced to remove unnecessary barriers to women entering politics will open up politics to more people in general.

You will get less publicans and vested interests and more people with integrity as croneys lose control of the nomination system.

The experience of other countries has proven this.

The behavior of politicians is a reflection of both political institutions and the expectations of citizens, not gender. Female politicians can be just as awful, if not more so, than their male counterparts.

As i have said in my OP it is not the fact that any one gender is more corrupt than the other that is at issue: it is the fact that a majority of predominance of one gender in politics seems to be an indicator of corruption and old boys (girls) clubs.

A balanced parliament meand that any boys clubs that survive will never be full.

Does the fact that in 2010 there are no child care facilities in dail Eireann not strike you as extremly telling??

28064212

You realise that Ireland are 14th in that index? It's not exactly a low ranking.

Oh, and do you know who's number one in the world in terms of women’s parliamentary representation? Rwanda - 66th in the CTI.

Here's a list of countries ordered by percentage of women in parliament. The top ten has Rwanda, South Africa, Cuba and Mozambique. That's 66th, 54th, 69th and 116th in the CTI

Yitzhak Rabin

Gender quota are sexist. They send out the message that obviously you are not good enough to make it on your own, so we'll force people to vote for you.

Creating conditions that will encourage more females to enter into politics is welcome. Forcing the public to elect someone is not. Its the antithesis of democracy.

southsiderosie

T runner wrote: »

It was not ridiculous for the Nordic countries which have the most progressive societies in the world, a point youve conveniently ignored. We vote for men and women in equal numbers. This has nothing to do with it. The problem is that only 13% of females make it to the polling card.


It is not possible to draw enough candidates from political dynasties. In the long run parties will have to alter their culture to make them more attractive to potential female politicians. This has been the experience of the other countries that have introduced quotas. Sweden for example now has an extremely transparent efficient political system.

Sweden had a transparent, progressive system before they introduced female quotas. I think you have your causal arrows mixed up here.

T runner wrote: »

Parties being forced to remove unnecessary barriers to women entering politics will open up politics to more people in general.

You will get less publicans and vested interests and more people with integrity as croneys lose control of the nomination system.

The experience of other countries has proven this.

No it has not. As I noted, the Swedish system was already pretty progressive and transparent before quotas were introduced. In order to be convincing, you will have to show us a case where the introduction of female quotas occurred and then afterwards there was a marked change in political culture and behavior.

T runner wrote: »

As i have said in my OP it is not the fact that any one gender is more corrupt than the other that is at issue: it is the fact that a majority of predominance of one gender in politics seems to be an indicator of corruption and old boys (girls) clubs.

No it doesn't. Having a lot of men in office does not mean that they will be corrupt. The institutions shaping the behavior of politicians seem to matter more than their gender.

T runner wrote: »

Does the fact that in 2010 there are no child care facilities in dail Eireann not strike you as extremly telling??

Most workplaces, even if they have a majority female workforce, do not have childcare facilities, so no.

T runner

28064212 wrote: »

You realise that Ireland are 14th in that index? It's not exactly a low ranking.

Oh, and do you know who's number one in the world in terms of women’s parliamentary representation? Rwanda - 66th in the CTI.

Here's a list of countries ordered by percentage of women in parliament. The top ten has Rwanda, South Africa, Cuba and Mozambique. That's 66th, 54th, 69th and 116th in the CTI

Thats correct Rwanda is number one. That was not always the case. The male dominated Rwandan parliament and leadership of 2 decades ago was responsible for one of the worst genocides that ever occurred.

Since then it has adopted a gender system and it has risen to a remarkeable 66th and a corruption transparency score of 4!!! an amazing turnaround given that all its neighbours are on just above or below 2. Incredible.

Gender quotas has worked remarkeably well in Rwanda. You will also note that the chances of another civil war/genocide are massively diminished by the current parliament structure adding to the countries stability. You would have to concede that the prospect of a parliament leading a country to civil war are massively diminished by having equal gender representation rather than a high 90s percentage of males????


It has been shown that country with a low starting percentage will not reach gender balance and representation without strong goal oriented stimulus like a quota, that is why many poorer countries have adopted it as a progressive policy. Embarrrassingly Ireland having never exceeded 13% falls into this category.

deise go deo

28064212 wrote: »

You realise that Ireland are 14th in that index? It's not exactly a low ranking.

Oh, and do you know who's number one in the world in terms of women’s parliamentary representation? Rwanda - 66th in the CTI.

Here's a list of countries ordered by percentage of women in parliament. The top ten has Rwanda, South Africa, Cuba and Mozambique. That's 66th, 54th, 69th and 116th in the CTI

Perhaps banning women from politics is the way to go?*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

*Runs in search of Bomb Shelter.

southsiderosie

T runner wrote: »

Thats correct Rwanda is number one. That was not always the case. The male dominated Rwandan parliament and leadership of 2 decades ago was responsible for one of the worst genocides that ever occurred.

Since then it has adopted a gender system and it has risen to a remarkeable 66th and a corruption transparency score of 4!!! an amazing turnaround given that all its neighbours are on just above or below 2. Incredible.

Gender quotas has worked remarkeably well in Rwanda. You will also note that the chances of another civil war/genocide are massively diminished by the current parliament structure adding to the countries stability. You would have to concede that the prospect of a parliament leading a country to civil war are massively diminished by having equal gender representation rather than a high 90s percentage of males????


It has been shown that country with a low starting percentage will not reach gender balance and representation without strong goal oriented stimulus like a quota. Ireland having never exceeded 13% falls into this category.

You don't think that after a genocide that there isn't a massive internal re-evaluation of a country's political culture and behavior? Good lord. Not to mention the fact that there has been massive intervention and investment by a very guilty international community in the region.

Rwanda is also a terrible example, as women actively participated in the killing. One woman was the main voice on the radio urging people to "kill the cockroaches".

You are pinning political outcomes on gender quotas when they seem to be better explained by pre-existing political culture (which in and of itself seems to determine whether or not quotas exist) or in this case an event so horrific that it forced a collective restructuring of the entire political system (which is basically how South Africa ended up with quotas).

T runner

southsiderosie wrote: »

Sweden had a transparent, progressive system before they introduced female quotas. I think you have your causal arrows mixed up here.

No they didnt.

No it has not. As I noted, the Swedish system was already pretty progressive and transparent before quotas were introduced. In order to be convincing, you will have to show us a case where the introduction of female quotas occurred and then afterwards there was a marked change in political culture and behavior.

There are numerous documantation on the case of Sweden and its transformation in the late 70's. ill link one tommorrow.

No it doesn't. Having a lot of men in office does not mean that they will be corrupt.

No it doesnt, i never said it did. But having a lot of men in the office may mean it more likely that there are invisible barriers to women being in that office, all else being equal.

If you have a political party like FF that continually returns a low percentage of women candidates you have to assume that theer are barries in place. Many potential good candidates including men and women arent making it to be nominated. The low percentage of women is a symptom of the barrier.
The barrier facilitates only a certain "type" as a politician. This is usually a certain type of male. Many males and usually the vast majority of females are not of this type.

The institutions shaping the behavior of politicians seem to matter more than their gender.

So you are saying that the TDs we have are essentially good, but their behaviour is shaped by the institutions?

The institutions are a problem but the calibre of politician to change them are at issue also.

Gender quotas means opening up politics for more men and women promoting a better calibre of politician with the will to reform or replace these institutions.

Most workplaces, even if they have a majority female workforce, do not have childcare facilities, so no.

Its majority female management or directorship that us relavent, that is where corporate power lies.

I would maintain that if the male dominated dail cannot even suceed in having childcare in Leinster house it is hardly surprising that there is no childcare elsewhere in the country.

T runner

southsiderosie wrote: »

Sweden had a transparent, progressive system before they introduced female quotas. I think you have your causal arrows mixed up here.

Source
Sweden has the second highest percentage1 of female parliamentarians in the national parliament. 45.3 percent of the elected candidates were women in the 2002 election. This means that 158 seats of the total 349 seats are taken by women. And in the cabinet, almost 50 percent of ministers are female (10 out of 22). Today all the parties acknowledge the importance of involving women in politics and have well defined goals for women’s participation in politics. As such, we can conclude that Sweden has been very successful in encouraging more women to take part in politics.
But it has not always been like that: it is a long and ongoing process. The turning point came in 1972 when the Liberal Party and the Social Democrats recognized the importance of involving women in politicsNo it doesn't. Having a lot of men in office does not mean that they will be corrupt. The institutions shaping the behavior of politicians seem to matter more than their gender.

deise go deo

T runner wrote: »

Gender quotas means opening up politics for more men and women promoting a better calibre of politician with the will to reform or replace these institutions.

Don't you mean less men and more women?

Gender Quotas are a bad Idea. Do you think a Female politician would have any respect from their male counterparts if the only reason they got in was their gender?
People should be chosen on their merit, not on their gender. Im sure a better way can be found to promote merit based choices than Gender quotas.

Hector Mildew

In this country it seems that a little corruption can benefit ones political career. If we want to clean up our political system then we should start sacking and stop re electing dodgy politicians - male and female. Instead vote for the best candidate - regardless of gender. The system will only remain unfair if we, men and women, vote to keep it that way.

Regarding childcare in the Dail, I wonder if a female politician would've suffered the same level of criticism as Paul Gogarty did for bringing his child to work (when/ if he had no other option)?

T runner

yekahs wrote: »

Gender quota are sexist.

No always having less than 14% female representation in the history of a state is shameful and sexist.

They send out the message that obviously you are not good enough to make it on your own, so we'll force people to vote for you.

No they send out a message that corruption and croneyism will no longer be tolerated and that the people demand represantation in their Dail.

Creating conditions that will encourage more females to enter into politics is welcome.

This wont happen. Our Dail cant even create conditions where there are child care facilities in the Dail. Clearly its not a priority.

southsiderosie wrote: »

You don't think that after a genocide that there isn't a massive internal re-evaluation of a country's political culture and behavior?

Yes and the re-evaluation included a quota system which successsfully elevated Rwanda to be the least corrupt and most stable country in Central Africa

Not to mention the fact that there has been massive intervention and investment by a very guilty international community in the region.

It appears they were a lot more comfortable giving their cash to an evenly repreentative parliament. That way they knew the cash wouldnt be used to be Kaleshnakovs, I guess.

Rwanda is also a terrible example, as women actively participated in the killing. One woman was the main voice on the radio urging people to "kill the cockroaches".

In any war some women participate in the killings. We know that all the leaders were male, that the parliament was male, yet you try an argue that women were somehow equally responsible for that genocide????

You are pinning political outcomes on gender quotas when they seem to be better explained by pre-existing political culture (which in and of itself seems to determine whether or not quotas exist) or in this case an event so horrific that it forced a collective restructuring of the entire political system (which is basically how South Africa ended up with quotas).

And you are attaching absolutely no relevance to the role of gender quotas in producing a stable and representaive political system to successfully achieve these political goals.

Indeed i am sure that female representation may have been vital to securing much of the aid. Why is that?

southsiderosie

T runner wrote: »

Source
Sweden has the second highest percentage1 of female parliamentarians in the national parliament. 45.3 percent of the elected candidates were women in the 2002 election. This means that 158 seats of the total 349 seats are taken by women. And in the cabinet, almost 50 percent of ministers are female (10 out of 22). Today all the parties acknowledge the importance of involving women in politics and have well defined goals for women’s participation in politics. As such, we can conclude that Sweden has been very successful in encouraging more women to take part in politics.
But it has not always been like that: it is a long and ongoing process. The turning point came in 1972 when the Liberal Party and the Social Democrats recognized the importance of involving women in politics.[/B

I did not say that Sweden had women before quotas. What I said was that they had progressive political system and good governance. Sweden has been light-years ahead of pretty much every other country in the world when it comes to social policy. Social democrats have dominated Swedish politics since the 1930s, and Swedes themselves are extremely civic.

In the 1970s, when the government pushed gender quotas, it was part of a broader movement to have more inclusive electoral politics - they also allowed for non-citizens to vote. But even if they hadn't introduced quotas, I would still bet that Sweden would have good outcomes in terms of governance and accountability.

As for Irish politics, part of the issue is that the job of a TD is extremely time-consuming, and not conducive to raising young children. A TD announced her retirement this year for this very reason. Even male TDs say it is a hard balance.

I think that there should be more women in politics not because they would make it better, but because I would like to think that our political leadership reflects the actual population in a democracy. The Ancient Greeks essentially had quotas, but for different regional and socioeconomic interests: those who served were carefully drawn from rural, urban, and seafaring communities, in order to insure that everyone understood everyone else's interests. Perhaps you could use this logic for gender quotas in government, but then you run into a whole host of other problems: do you then have to have quotas for ethnicity? Sexuality? Where does it end?

T runner

Hector Mildew wrote: »

In this country it seems that a little corruption can benefit ones political career. If we want to clean up our political system then we should start sacking and stop re electing dodgy politicians - male and female. Instead vote for the best candidate - regardless of gender.

You can only elect whats on the ballot paper, right?
The archaic party system here means that the largest grouping on that ballot will be publicans? Do you understand.

Regarding childcare in the Dail, I wonder if a female politician would've suffered the same level of criticism as Paul Gogarty did for bringing his child to work (when/ if he had no other option)?

The finger should have been pointed at the entire Dail for not having child care facilities.

He probbaly got criticism becuase muppets assume his wife should be taking care of the child!!! Said muppets might excuse the woman based on teh fallacy that the childs rightful place is with his mother.

Neither Paul Gogarty or anyone else can be criticised for being caught in a once off situation like that: beacuse its nigh on impossible to care for a child even part time and be a TD. No except for the odd exception...its a mans job being a TD!!

deise go deo

T runner wrote: »

No they send out a message that corruption and croneyism will no longer be tolerated and that the people demand represantation in their Dail.

If you want to send out a message against Corruption than surely Bring people to Court on Corruption charges would be the way to do it, I dont think gender quotas are any such message, and even if they were they are a very vague roundabout message.
The People have representation in the Dail
(Other than Donegall and Waterford of course.)

Bottle_of_Smoke

Eh are you for real?

Corruption doesn't exist exclusively in single sex circles!

Most recent corruption case I can think of was Iris Robinson(female) getting a donation from a male developer whilst an MP. Female managers are notorious for discriminating against women

Desire for money overides sexist attitudes mate.

It wasn't me!

OP, do you support or desire quotas for the following groups?
Homosexuals
Asian men and women
Eastern European men and women
African men and women
Various social strata within Irish culture

If not, why do you believe it's necessary to have a certain proportion of women within the government in order to have issues like childcare adequately represented? To be honest, that strikes me as deeply sexist and demeaning.

T runner

southsiderosie wrote: »

.....As for Irish politics, part of the issue is that the job of a TD is extremely time-consuming, and not conducive to raising young children. A TD announced her retirement this year for this very reason. Even male TDs say it is a hard balance.

Yes, and if you have gender quotas then the system is forced to change to be more conductive to raising children, even part-time. You wont have these issues in countries with quotas will you??? Do you think the Dail will ever make changes to make the job less time consuming without a quota system?
Again they wont even arrange childcare facilities in Dail Eireann.

I think that there should be more women in politics not because they would make it better, but because I would like to think that our political leadership reflects the actual population in a democracy.

Exactly, and issues like child care etc wont be completely ignored.

Perhaps you could use this logic for gender quotas in government, but then you run into a whole host of other problems: do you then have to have quotas for ethnicity? Sexuality? Where does it end?

as Ive trid to explain, the barriers that exist allow a certain type of person to be a politician. In our system a Publican with a housewife and party connections is well placed.
The barriers dont just stop women, they stop all others bar a few "types".

Thus when the barriers go after quotas, politics is open for more types of men as well as women.

All discrimination should go with these barriers.

It makes sense to have the quotas based on gender as this group represents half the population and so the quotas will have more radical influence in reforming the system.

southsiderosie

T runner wrote: »

No always having less than 14% female representation in the history of a state is shameful and sexist.

No they send out a message that corruption and croneyism will no longer be tolerated and that the people demand represantation in their Dail.

This wont happen. Our Dail cant even create conditions where there are child care facilities in the Dail. Clearly its not a priority.

Yes and the re-evaluation included a quota system which successsfully elevated Rwanda to be the least corrupt and most stable country in Central Africa

It appears they were a lot more comfortable giving their cash to an evenly repreentative parliament. That way they knew the cash wouldnt be used to be Kaleshnakovs, I guess.

In any war some women participate in the killings. We know that all the leaders were male, that the parliament was male, yet you try an argue that women were somehow equally responsible for that genocide???

And you are attaching absolutely no relevance to the role of gender quotas in producing a stable and representaive political system to successfully achieve these political goals.

Indeed i am sure that female representation may have been vital to securing much of the aid. Why is that?

OK, what outcomes are you actually interested in? A stable system, a 'representative' system, or a non-corrupt system? Because these are three different things, and the only one where there is compelling evidence for quotas is to have more gender balance.

There is no causal relationship between gender representation and corruption. None. Not in Sweden, not in Rwanda. They may be correlated, and I have seen articles highlighting this, but it is hard to say that one causes the other because the factors that explain high levels of gender representation probably also explain lower levels of corruption; therefore there would probably be similar levels of corruption, whether there were gender quotas or not.

Hector Mildew

T runner wrote: »

You can only elect whats on the ballot paper, right?
The archaic party system here means that the largest grouping on that ballot will be publicans? Do you understand.

Yes, and we can decide NOT to vote for the corrupt ones...

The finger should have been pointed at the entire Dail for not having child care facilities.

He probbaly got criticism becuase muppets assume his wife should be taking care of the child!!! Said muppets might excuse the woman based on teh fallacy that the childs rightful place is with his mother.

Neither Paul Gogarty or anyone else can be criticised for being caught in a once off situation like that: beacuse its nigh on impossible to care for a child even part time and be a TD. No except for the odd exception...its a mans job being a TD!!

Listening to the Joe Duffy show, most of the criticism came from women, sad really given your points...

deise go deo

T runner wrote: »

Yes, and if you have gender quotas then the system is forced to change to be more conductive to raising children, even part-time. You wont have these issues in countries with quotas will you??? Do you think the Dail will ever make changes to make the job less time consuming without a quota system?
Again they wont even arrange childcare facilities in Dail Eireann.

Are child care facilities needed or even practicle IN lenster house? Are the existing Female TD's even looking for them?
These people are very well paid. For the very reason that they can then pay for things like child care when they are in the Dail.

southsiderosie

T runner wrote: »

Yes, and if you have gender quotas then the system is forced to change to be more conductive to raising children, even part-time. You wont have these issues in countries with quotas will you??? Do you think the Dail will ever make changes to make the job less time consuming without a quota system?
Again they wont even arrange childcare facilities in Dail Eireann.

Having a quota system, or even having child care in the Dail, will do nothing to change the fact that Irish voters expect TDs to show up at every funeral, chicken dinner, and tractor show in their home district. Being a public representative in Ireland is very face-time intensive, and this is not conducive to a healthy family life. Who do you thing voters are going to support - the person who stays late to deal with constituent issues, or the person who goes home early to put their kids to bed? That's the harsh reality of being in a national legislature, in any country.

T runner wrote: »

Exactly, and issues like child care etc wont be completely ignored.

Do you think children's medical care has improved in the HSE under Mary Harney?

T runner wrote: »

as Ive trid to explain, the barriers that exist allow a certain type of person to be a politician. In our system a Publican with a housewife and party connections is well placed.
The barriers dont just stop women, they stop all others bar a few "types".

Most parties have youth organizations as feeders, along with GAA and parish networks. One party official told me, and this is backed up in a lot of the literature on Irish politics, that individual networks are basically how parties decide to put people on the ballot - they need to know that enough people will vote for you as an individual, because the STV system encourages that kind of voting. Given the importance of individual networks, it is no wonder that publicans do well in Irish politics.

T runner wrote: »

It makes sense to have the quotas based on gender as this group represents half the population and so the quotas will have more radical influence in reforming the system.

I doubt it. Quotas usually come about because a system is already "reformed" via gradual changes from its internal culture or some kind of external shock.

T runner

It wasn't me! wrote: »

OP, do you support or desire quotas for the following groups?
Homosexuals
Asian men and women
Eastern European men and women
African men and women
Various social strata within Irish culture

If they are necessary then yes i would.
However the barriers that prevent women from entering politics are the same that prevent these groups. With women as the largest group of these (50%) of the population it makes sense for the quotas to be based on gender.

I have expleined this in detail in answering the previous post.

If not, why do you believe it's necessary to have a certain proportion of women within the government in order to have issues like childcare adequately represented? To be honest, that strikes me as deeply sexist and demeaning.

I dont really understand the "if not" statement at the start there.

It is a fact that there is no childcare facilities in Dail Eireann. Do you think i am lying?

It is up to the dail and government to supply these facilities why have they failed?

Could it be that childcare is not a priority for them?

Why is that? Who takes care of the TDs children? Is it their wives perhaps?
Sure why would it be a priority?

If childcare is so important to teh men of Dail Eireann..then why arent more of them at home minding their kids with no time for politics........like the women?

DaSilva

This debate has always struck me because to me it was clear their are good points on both sides. The conclusion I come to is policy that would encourage more women to run for election up to a 50% balance. Why? More options at the polls doesn't hurt. Putting quotas on government seats is too far and begins to create problems. Quotas on election options sounds good.

It wasn't me!

T runner wrote: »

It wasn't me! wrote: »

If they are necessary then yes i would.
However the barriers that prevent women from entering politics are the same that prevent these groups. With women as the largest group of these (50%) of the population it makes sense for the quotas to be based on gender.

I have expleined this in detail in answering the previous post.




I dont really understand the "if not" statement at the start there.

It is a fact that there is no childcare facilities in Dail Eireann. Do you think i am lying?

It is up to the dail and government to supply these facilities why have they failed?

Could it be that childcare is not a priority for them?

Why is that? Who takes care of the TDs children? Is it their wives perhaps?
Sure why would it be a priority?

If childcare is so important to teh men of Dail Eireann..then why arent more of them at home minding their kids with no time for politics........like the women?

Is there a demand for childcare within Dail Eireann? How many people require the facility? Where would it be placed? What would it cost? These are the questions you need to be thinking of for yourself. Frankly, I utterly abhor the idea of a quota of any group, for any reason. A politician should be an identifiable name and a set of policies, nothing more. That is the criteria upon which their election should be decided. What's between their legs is utterly irrelevant. If the number of people who require childcare in Dail Eireann is sufficiently large, the space exists to create it and the cost is not prohibitive, relatively speaking, then it should be provided. It shouldn't be a women's issue, but an issue based on the requirements of the entire Dail. If you think the absence of childcare facilities is the deciding factor in female participation in government, you have an extremely low opinion of women.

T runner

southsiderosie wrote: »

Having a quota system, or even having child care in the Dail, will do nothing to change the fact that Irish voters expect TDs to show up at every funeral, chicken dinner, and tractor show in their home district. Being a public representative in Ireland is very face-time intensive, and this is not conducive to a healthy family life. Who do you thing voters are going to support - the person who stays late to deal with constituent issues, or the person who goes home early to put their kids to bed? That's the harsh reality of being in a national legislature, in any country

.

No, no, not in any country in this country.

To attract women and have less hours consumed on pointless vote grabbing, the local culture would have to be changed. The parish pump taken out of politics will solve this, no bad thing either. A list system is one method. There are others.....

You see a quota system has far reaching effects. The parish pump system is actually a barrier to women and many men. This would be a most welcome casualty of the quota system.

Do you think children's medical care has improved in the HSE under Mary Harney?

Nobodies medical care has improved that doesnt prove much, you can have good and bad politicians male and female.

Most parties have youth organizations as feeders, along with GAA and parish networks. One party official told me, and this is backed up in a lot of the literature on Irish politics, that individual networks are basically how parties decide to put people on the ballot - they need to know that enough people will vote for you as an individual, because the STV system encourages that kind of voting. Given the importance of individual networks, it is no wonder that publicans do well in Irish politics.

And if you are to attract capable people into politics then that system must adapt. These youth networks would need to attract females, and that wont change without quotas.

I doubt it. Quotas usually come about because a system is already "reformed" via gradual changes from its internal culture or some kind of external shock.

Quotas are introduced as a resort to instigate reform. If the system were already reformed it would have 30% female representaion and not need a quota.

southsiderosie

DaSilva wrote: »

This debate has always struck me because to me it was clear their are good points on both sides. The conclusion I come to is policy that would encourage more women to run for election up to a 50% balance. Why? More options at the polls doesn't hurt. Putting quotas on government seats is too far and begins to create problems. Quotas on election options sounds good.

The Labour party call for quotas was for parties to commit to putting a certain number of female candidates forward, not that there should be seats reserved for them. I think this is more palatable, but is something that parties should decide on their own to do. Labour has, and brought in some very interesting new young female candidates in the 2009 local elections. The press then dubbed then "The Gilmore Girls". :mad:

southsiderosie

T runner wrote: »

.

No, no, not in any country in this country.

To attract women and have less hours consumed on pointless vote grabbing, the local culture would have to be changed. The parish pump taken out of politics will solve this, no bad thing either. A list system is one method. There are others.....

You see a quota system has far reaching effects. The parish pump system is actually a barrier to women and many men. This would be a most welcome casualty of the quota system.

A female quota would do nothing to destroy the parish pump system. I agree that a list system is the way to go to attack the parish pump; however a list system gives more power to parties in terms of candidate selection.

T runner wrote: »

.Nobodies medical care has improved that doesnt prove much, you can have good and bad politicians male and female.

And if you are to attract capable people into politics then that system must adapt. These youth networks would need to attract females, and that wont change without quotas.

Quotas are introduced as a resort to instigate reform. If the system were already reformed it would have 30% female representaion and not need a quota.

Women are overtaking men at universities; they have plenty of opportunity to join party youth organizations,

I will repeat my earlier question: what outcome are you actually interested in? Female representation or better governance? You keep interchanging the terms.

T runner

southsiderosie wrote: »

A female quota would do nothing to destroy the parish pump system. I agree that a list system is the way to go to attack the parish pump; however a list system gives more power to parties in terms of candidate selection.

You are not substantiating your points:

As has been said the issue of endless and defacto useless appearances by TDs adds to the unreasonable hours of the TD which is a barrier to women and many men entering politics (people who need to raise children).The Parish pump system suits a man with a stay at home wife to mind the kids.

If a quota system is forced on parties then it will not get quality women or even its quota if it does not remove this barrier. That is the beauty of it. The quota system is one piece of legislation with far reaching effects to clean up the system and remove unnecessary barriers to quality people entering politics.

Women are overtaking men at universities; they have plenty of opportunity to join party youth organizations,

But why would they join a youth organisation when due to barriers politics is clearly a mans game in this country?

If the University job entailed extremely unsocial hours making it impossible to bring up a child even on a part time basis then womens progress in University would be greatly diminished due to this discriminatory barrier.

I will repeat my earlier question: what outcome are you actually interested in? Female representation or better governance? You keep interchanging the terms.

I am interested in both. I believe that the Dail is not representative of the population of this country.
A huge proportion of the population (50%) is severely underrepresented.


Removing barriers to this group will effectively remove barriers to all under-represented groups.

Lets look at the current situation: 87% of TDs are men and there is no child care facilities in Leinster house or anywhere in teh country.

If 87% of TDs were women i have no doubt that child care facilities would be excellent in Leinster house and in the country. However, another area currently in good nick might be neglected in an 87% women scenario.

That is why a balanced and representative parliamnet is vital for better governance.

That is the whole cornerstone of representaive politics: All the important areas to people in our society are represented, none are neglected.

Monty Burnz

T-Runner - some words you may want to investigate:

Correlation does not imply causality.

That's all.

T runner

Monty Burnz wrote: »

T-Runner - some words you may want to investigate:

Correlation does not imply causality.

That's all.

Ive reduced the size a little, i do realize its a monumental statement but ......

This article Demonstrates the causality and correlation and references a myriad of sholarly work and evidence to back it.

Here is the abstract:

Numerous behavioral studies have found women to be more trust-worthy and
public-spirited than men. These results suggest that women should be
particularly effective in promoting honest government. Consistent with this
hypothesis, we find that the greater the representation of women in parliament,the lower the level of corruption. We find this association in a large crosssection of countries; the result is robust to a wide range of specifications.

If youve any argument with the causality and correlation argument made in
this report then lets hear it. Please dont give up your righteous empirical attitude to this debate now that the evidemce is stacked a little higher against your position

(and normal size letters please, its not a shouting match).

southsiderosie

T runner wrote: »

Ive reduced the size a little, i do realize its a monumental statement but ......

This article Demonstrates the causality and correlation and references a myriad of sholarly work and evidence to back it.

Here is the abstract:



If youve any argument with the causality and correlation argument made in
this report then lets hear it. Please dont give up your righteous empirical attitude to this debate now that the evidemce is stacked a little higher against your position

(and normal size letters please, its not a shouting match).

The article does not establish a causal relationship, it shows that there is correlation.

It starts by saying that there are certain behavioral traits observed in women. Then it takes its first leap by saying that these traits "imply" that women are "less likely to sacrifice the common good for personal gain".

It then goes on to compare the levels of women and government and levels of corruption, and finds a "strong, negative, and statistically significant relationship between the proportion of women in a country's legislature and the level of corruption". I.e. they find that the two are correlated.

However, the way this article is set up, it is impossible to establish if having more women in government is what causes there to be less corruption. The authors admit this in the conclusion: "we find that at the country level, higher rates of female participation in government are associated with lower levels of corruption". "Associated with" is a statement about correlation, not causation. As I have said repeatedly, there may be other factors involved, and these are not controlled for in their model.

enda1

Is this poster actually deriding the "sexist" gender imbalance in Dáil Éireann and suggesting a discriminatory quota system as a solution?

Suggesting that the reasons for corruption are because men are more corrupt by nature?

Then telling us that there needs to be childcare facilities in Leinster House to take care of the breeders' litters?

OP you do realise that the every adult resident who is an Irish or UK citizen can vote - male or female. If you want women to be in power, why not vote for them?

If there are not enough women running for position, why not run or help a woman campaign?

Men are also the child rearers in families you realise? The lack of childcare facilities in Leinster House also affects men looking to become TD. Either way, have you not heard of a private crèche?

In your effort to improve the democratic system, you intend to remove democracy from the ballot box. A bit of a logical fallacy don't ye think?

Iwasfrozen

So only men can be corrupt? How very sexist of you!

Liam Byrne

Mary O'Rourke suggested earlier this year that there should be an election.

Unfortunately she said this on-air, and didn't vote accordingly in the Dáil.

Double-standards and double-speak are not traits employed solely by males.

Reversed sexism is still sexism.

T runner

enda1 wrote: »

Is this poster actually deriding the "sexist" gender imbalance in Dáil Éireann and suggesting a discriminatory quota system as a solution?

It is only your unsubstantiated opinion that claims that a quota system is discriminatory.

Then telling us that there needs to be childcare facilities in Leinster House to take care of the breeders' litters?

The breeders' litters??

What a disgusting sentiment! Grow up!

OP you do realise that the every adult resident who is an Irish or UK citizen can vote - male or female. If you want women to be in power, why not vote for them?

Have you read this thread at all???

This question has been answered several times. People do not discriminate in voting based on gender. If you want to know more try actually reading thios thread instead of wasting our time.

If there are not enough women running for position, why not run or help a woman campaign?

Because these efforrts have proven not to work in the past. That is why 100 countries world wide have adopted gender quotas.

Men are also the child rearers in families you realise? The lack of childcare facilities in Leinster House also affects men looking to become TD.

But you stated (disgustingly, that "childcare facilities in Leinster House" were "to take care of the breeders' litters".

That is correct the lack of childcare facilities in the Oireachtas also affects men who want to become TDs. The vast majority of TDs in Leinster house have a wife at home who does the child rearing. They cant possibly do it themselves right as they work all hours that God gave them??

This ofcourse means that as well as women, any men who would like to have even a part time involvement in rearing their child are excluded from Irish politics.

In your effort to improve the democratic system, you intend to remove democracy from the ballot box. A bit of a logical fallacy don't ye think

I am actually advocating improving our system of democracy and governance by increasing our representation on the ballot box.

If a party does not remove barriers to people entering politics then they will field weak candidates and be rightly punished by the electorate.

The amount of discrimination in the system will therefore diminish. It is entirely up to and in the interest of the political party to make discrimination zero.


BTW if you use disrespectful and disgustinf phrases like "breeders' litters?" again i will not reply. Try it again and you will see

T runner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Mary O'Rourke suggested earlier this year that there should be an election.

Unfortunately she said this on-air, and didn't vote accordingly in the Dáil.

Double-standards and double-speak are not traits employed solely by males.

Reversed sexism is still sexism.

You are correct double speak is not the sole preserve of males. Neither is murder, violence, etc. What exactly is your point?

T runner

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So only men can be corrupt? How very sexist of you!

Please link to where i stated that only men can be corrupt?

maggy_thatcher

It wasn't me! wrote: »

OP, do you support or desire quotas for the following groups?
Homosexuals
Asian men and women
Eastern European men and women
African men and women
Various social strata within Irish culture

If not, why do you believe it's necessary to have a certain proportion of women within the government in order to have issues like childcare adequately represented? To be honest, that strikes me as deeply sexist and demeaning.

Don't forget blondes, brunettes and redheads...
If we're going to pick one arbitrary genetic marker, why not pick them all?

This discussion seems to be a re-start of this one.

Craven99

My gut tells me everyone should be voted on by their own merits but in the real workd I don't think this happens - just look at the Irish system!

So yes I think Gender Quotas would be a good thing for Ireland

Monty Burnz

T runner wrote: »

If youve any argument with the causality and correlation argument made in this report then lets hear it. Please dont give up your righteous empirical attitude to this debate now that the evidemce is stacked a little higher against your position

(and normal size letters please, its not a shouting match).

Aplogies for the big letters T runner, it just seemed to be a rather fundamental point.

Regarding the paper you offer - I'm sure you are aware that in the social sciences, papers offering differing views on the same subject are usually ten a penny (I am a social science researcher). However, somebody has to pay for research and there is a certain amount of political correctness involved in this.

Hence, you will find papers arguing that women are the solution to corruption, but you will not find papers arguing that women should be deprived of the vote etc. etc. because firstly nobody would pay for such research and secondly nobody would publish it.

Therefore I would search in vain for the paper that refutes the one that you have put forward. That does not mean that such an argument could not be made. Social science is the most inexact of sciences.

For example, I would take issue with this:

We expect both the level of corruption and political opportunities available to women to be affected by the overall level of social and economic development. Hence, we include log(GDP) and log(GDP) squared as controls.

Here, the authors appear to be arguing that women will have greater opportunities to be corrupt in a more developed society. I think that is a rather strong assumption: the likes of Imelda Marcos, Indira Ghandi or Elena Ceaucescu did not need particularly developed societies to be in a position to influence corruption.

I don't have the time (or the interest ) to be going through the paper, line by line, and each of its referents similarly, but suffice it to say that there are almost certainly other questionable elements in there.

...which is not to say that ultimately more women in government is not a desirable thing or beneficial from the point of view of corruption - but please be careful to understand the limitations of social science research (especially research in what we might call the 'gender studies' arena).

oscarBravo

There's a danger that this thread will generate more heat than light. If it does, a potentially interesting discussion will be cut short.

As always, remember the guiding principle: if your post doesn't add to the discussion, don't bother posting.

Liam Byrne

T runner wrote: »

Please link to where i stated that only men can be corrupt?

The thread title, where you claimed that gender quotas were "a simple solution to Irish political corruption and croneyism".

BTW, I don't know where you got the impression that the belief that sexist quotas are discriminatory was "unsubstantiated". It's sexist by nature.

Scenario 1 :

"Hello"
"Hello, I'm looking for a job"
"OK. Are you black ?"
"Yes"
"Sorry, you're not getting it"
[click]

Scenario 2 :

"Hello"
"Hello, I'm looking for a job"
"OK. Are you male ?"
"Yes"
"Sorry, you're not getting it"
[click]

Anyone care to tell me what the difference is ?

T runner

southsiderosie wrote: »

The article does not establish a causal relationship, it shows that there is correlation. ........However, the way this article is set up, it is impossible to establish if having more women in government is what causes there to be less corruption.

That is patently untrue. The authors have accounted for this:

Obviously, some care is required in interpreting our results. Since we are dealing with cross-country data, it may be that some unobserved variable is causing both high female participation in government and low corruption. We have tried to mitigate these concerns by including in our regressions variables to control for various underlying institutional characteristics that would most likely be responsible for such a spurious correlation.

The authors admit this in the conclusion: "we find that at the country level, higher rates of female participation in government are associated with lower levels of corruption". "Associated with" is a statement about correlation, not causation.

Also in the conclusion which you omitted:

There exists a substantial literature in the social sciences which suggests that women may have higher standards of ethical behavior and be more concerned with the common good. Consistent with this micro-level evidence, we find that at the country level, higher rates of female participation in government are associated with lower levels of corruption


You are cherry picking my friend!!!!!!

The results show the strong correlation. THe causation is sited and referenced below.


For example, women are more likely to exhibit 'helping' behavior (Eagly and Crowley, 1986); vote based on social issues (Goertzel, 1983); score more
highly on 'integrity tests' (Ones and Viswesvaran, 1998); take stronger stances on ethical behavior (Glover et al, 1997; Reiss and Mitra, 1998); and behave more generously when faced with economic decisions (Eckel and Grossman, 1998)

Also

In reference to the potential role of women in the Russian government, political scientist Valerii Tishkov has argued quite forcefully that "women bring enriching values [to government]." As a result, they "rarely succumb to authoritarian styles of behavior and prefer not to maintain the sort of expensive entourage which often accompanies high-placed (male)

deise go deo

You constantly use Sweeden as the example of this. However there are many other factors at play in Sweeden, They have a fantastic education system for a start, Perhaps these factors are more responsible for their lower corruption than Gender Quotas?

I remain unconvinced that there is anything fair about a women beating a better qualified man for a nomination because of her Gender.

maggy_thatcher

deise go deo wrote: »

You constantly use Sweeden as the example of this. However there are many other factors at play in Sweeden, They have a fantastic education system for a start, Perhaps these factors are more responsible for their lower corruption than Gender Quotas?

I remain unconvinced that there is anything fair about a women beating a better qualified man for a nomination because of her Gender.

Not only that, Sweden has an optional quota system, but T_Runner is advocating a mandatory quota system. This difference is fundamental - if it's optional, then it's obvious that the parties wanted it and worked with it, if it's mandatory, then it implies resistance, and just demeans those who it tries to "help"