Quotas for women

tomcf

Should there be quotas for selection of women candidates? If so, should they be based on general population % or % of women members of the party? Is there any significance in the fact that 80% of the voters on this site are male?

Reilly616

No, there shouldn't. It's undemocratic.

paul71

There is a perfectly good quota for women in place already.

50% of the electorate are women thats all thats needed.

mystique150

Yes there should. If parties were pressured into supporting female candidates, women would be more encouraged to enter the system. As it stands there is a shortage of good female politicians partly because it is a male dominated system and therefore difficult for women to move up the ranks. In the likes of Sweden there is a successful quota system in place. It should be introduced along with a complete overhaul of the current system we have.

paul71

mystique150 wrote: »

Yes there should. If parties were pressured into supporting female candidates, women would be more encouraged to enter the system. As it stands there is a shortage of good female politicians partly because it is a male dominated system and therefore difficult for women to move up the ranks. In the likes of Sweden there is a successful quota system in place. It should be introduced along with a complete overhaul of the current system we have.

The only reason it is male dominated is because not enough women decide to become active, so the responsibilty lies with women to become more active.

SugarHigh

No, definitely not. I don't believe we should judge people by their gender. If women truly are just as capable as men then why would they need special treatment? Seems a bit patronising.

28064212

tomcf wrote: »

Should there be quotas for selection of women candidates?

No

tomcf wrote: »

Is there any significance in the fact that 80% of the voters on this site are male?

Yes. It signifies that around 80% of the users of this site are male

mystique150 wrote: »

Yes there should. If parties were pressured into supporting female candidates, women would be more encouraged to enter the system. As it stands there is a shortage of good female politicians partly because it is a male dominated system and therefore difficult for women to move up the ranks. In the likes of Sweden there is a successful quota system in place. It should be introduced along with a complete overhaul of the current system we have.

Why stop at female quotas? Where's the black quota, the asian quota, the traveller quota, the gay quota? What about a "married" quota, and a "has kids" quota?

SugarHigh

mystique150 wrote: »

Yes there should. If parties were pressured into supporting female candidates, women would be more encouraged to enter the system. As it stands there is a shortage of good female politicians partly because it is a male dominated system and therefore difficult for women to move up the ranks. In the likes of Sweden there is a successful quota system in place. It should be introduced along with a complete overhaul of the current system we have.

You haven't told us how it is more difficult for women to move up the ranks. I don't believe it is.

Sweden improved their numbers artificially, women were held to a lower standard.

tomcf

I agree with Paul71. We should only consider quotas when a critical mass of women join political parties and then only if the party's head office routinely overrules the local selection of women. If they're not in they won't win.

Quackles

A quota system would set women back. Say I'm a female politician, and there is a quota system in place. Regardless how good I am, I would be judged differently, to a lower bar. There would always be those that say I got where I got because of the quota system. If you're not good enough to compete, don't run. If you're good enough, you'll rise through the ranks. I don't want a second rate representative just because she's a she. I want the best there is, regardless of gender.

mystique150

It is difficult for female politicians. First of all to get a foot in the door at a local level, politics are often conducted in the local pubs at so called 'clinics'. This can be difficult for women for a couple of reasons. Some women may have children and find evening constituency work difficult, others may just find it awkward engaging with people in this type of environment.

Second of all many of the female politicians have come from political families and instantly have a foot in the door. Mary O' Rourke comes from a large political family in the Linehans. Deirdre Clune and Kathleen Lynch also came from political backgrounds.

Obviously there are exceptional women like Mary Robinson who made their own political career but should a woman be exceptional in order to carve a political standing? I think not! There is currently a government in place mostly consisting of men and I would say very few of them are doing a job that a woman couldn't also do and may even do it better.

There is for example a difference in types of occupation between women and men, with women more often involved in care work, both privately within the family and publicly such the care of the elderly and children. Surely, these agendas should also be addressed by women and perhaps then such issues would be dealt with better?

If such areas were of higher priority it may be possible that more women would feel motivated to enter politics but due the current minority position women have within the government, we are currently missing out. A quota system whether voluntary or compulsory would help address these issues and possibly would only be needed for maybe two terms in order to bring the numbers to a level playing field. As it stands, the current system does little to encourage women.

http://www.idea.int/publications/wip2/upload/Sweden.pdf

Quackles

mystique150 wrote: »

It is difficult for female politicians. First of all to get a foot in the door at a local level, politics are often conducted in the local pubs at so called 'clinics'. This can be difficult for women for a couple of reasons. Some women may have children and find evening constituency work difficult, others may just find it awkward engaging with people in this type of environment.

I do agree with you to a point, but quotas is the wrong way to fix this. I grew up around local politics and I've seen first hand the level of commitment it requires time wise. Meetings (for anything, not just political) are held in the evening, around bed time for the kids. As a result, I'm not very involved in the party. Even this campaign - I canvassed a few days, but I had to work around my kids. Weekends only, and limited to one of the two weekend days. I'm passionate about getting our candidate elected, but at the end of the day, my children have to come first. I think that is a block for a lot of potential female candidates. Introducing a quota system does nothing to address this - and the time commitment required increases once you are in office. That said, I have no idea how to address the issue Childcare, perhaps?

the_syco

mystique150 wrote: »

If parties were pressured into supporting female candidates, women would be more encouraged to enter the system.

So what you're saying is, if 20 men and 5 women apply for 10 positions, the 20 men have to canvas, and show why they should be picked, so that at the end of the day, 5 are voted in? Oh, and the 5 women won't have to canvas, as the quota will allow them to just walk in. No votes needed.

And you support this system?

tomcf

All of this may be very true, but why don't women just join a party - they don't have to go to every meeting - so that they can nominate and vote for women who are interested in being active. It will only change if women work for change.
The childcare thing has to be sorted out between couples - if a woman can't negotiate sharing the minding of kids with her partner, she is unlikely to be much of a politician.

mystique150

Quackles wrote: »

I do agree with you to a point, but quotas is the wrong way to fix this. I grew up around local politics and I've seen first hand the level of commitment it requires time wise. Meetings (for anything, not just political) are held in the evening, around bed time for the kids. As a result, I'm not very involved in the party. Even this campaign - I canvassed a few days, but I had to work around my kids. Weekends only, and limited to one of the two weekend days. I'm passionate about getting our candidate elected, but at the end of the day, my children have to come first. I think that is a block for a lot of potential female candidates. Introducing a quota system does nothing to address this - and the time commitment required increases once you are in office. That said, I have no idea how to address the issue Childcare, perhaps?

Yes the way politics is conducted does no favours for women and your the perfect example. Childcare at government and local level for women in politics would be a step in the right direction.

SugarHigh

mystique150 wrote: »

This can be difficult for women for a couple of reasons. Some women may have children and find evening constituency work difficult, others may just find it awkward engaging with people in this type of environment.

How would a quota solve any of this?

Second of all many of the female politicians have come from political families and instantly have a foot in the door. Mary O' Rourke comes from a large political family in the Linehans. Deirdre Clune and Kathleen Lynch also came from political backgrounds.

The same applies to men so what is your point?

Obviously there are exceptional women like Mary Robinson who made their own political career but should a woman be exceptional in order to carve a political standing? I think not! There is currently a government in place mostly consisting of men and I would say very few of them are doing a job that a woman couldn't also do and may even do it better.

Why would a woman do it better?

There is for example a difference in types of occupation between women and men, with women more often involved in care work, both privately within the family and publicly such the care of the elderly and children. Surely, these agendas should also be addressed by women and perhaps then such issues would be dealt with better?

Why not introduce quotas for men in those industries?
A quota for female politicians doesn't mean you are getting more care workers into politics and just because you don't have experience working in the care industry doesn't mean you can't represent them politically.

If such areas were of higher priority it may be possible that more women would feel motivated to enter politics but due the current minority position women have within the government, we are currently missing out.

How does a quota motivate someone into politics? It just gives those already motivated an unfair advantage.

EoghanConway

Sexist and undemocratic.

SugarHigh

mystique150 wrote: »

Yes the way politics is conducted does no favours for women and your the perfect example. Childcare at government and local level for women in politics would be a step in the right direction.

Why do you say childcare for women?

If it is still assumed that women should be left minding the kids isn't that the real problem and something quotas do nothing to fix?

mystique150

the_syco wrote: »

So what you're saying is, if 20 men and 5 women apply for 10 positions, the 20 men have to canvas, and show why they should be picked, so that at the end of the day, 5 are voted in? Oh, and the 5 women won't have to canvas, as the quota will allow them to just walk in. No votes needed.

And you support this system?

They would have to be elected but currently women aren't even standing! The quota could be established at the constituency level.

tomcf wrote: »

All of this may be very true, but why don't women just join a party - they don't have to go to every meeting - so that they can nominate and vote for women who are interested in being active. It will only change if women work for change.
The childcare thing has to be sorted out between couples - if a woman can't negotiate sharing the minding of kids with her partner, she is unlikely to be much of a politician.

Women appear to be overlooked in party politics for this very reason. Its already becoming very obvious that women need extra support to even get into politics!

SugarHigh

mystique150 wrote: »

They would have to be elected but currently women aren't even standing! The quota could be established at the constituency level.

That doesn't change what he said. You still have a smaller pool to choose from because less women put themselves forward.

Quotas don't increase the number of women who put themselves forward it just gives an unfair advantage to those that do.

mystique150

SugarHigh wrote: »

Why do you say childcare for women?

If it is still assumed that women should be left minding the kids isn't that the real problem and something quotas do nothing to fix?

As I said already quotas and an overhaul in how we conduct politics at a local level. The issues you outlined may in long run be better addressed should we have more women in power and ultimately giving these issues greater priority.

28064212

mystique150 wrote: »

As I said already quotas and an overhaul in how we conduct politics at a local level. The issues you outlined may in long run be better addressed should we have more women in power and ultimately giving these issues greater priority.

The quota approach does nothing to address the problem, it just tries (and fails) to address the symptom.

Why should a single woman with no kids be able to avail of a system that is trying to address childcare issues that a man who minds his kids can't?

SugarHigh

mystique150 wrote: »

As I said already quotas and an overhaul in how we conduct politics at a local level. The issues you outlined may in long run be better addressed should we have more women in power and ultimately giving these issues greater priority.

You haven't explained how any of this would work. Your solution so far is "lets artificially inflate the number of women in politics and then that will somehow solve the problem"

You also completely ignore the fact it diminishes the achievement of any woman in politics because it puts a question mark over her head as to whether it is only her ovaries that got her there.

SugarHigh

Female politicians in Ireland already rely far too much on their gender. It should not be possible to use gender as political currency.

However the other main talking point is the national media blackout ordered by Mary Coughlan’s camp.

A number of national newspapers have been refused access to her campaign, with Ms Coughlan privately citing the ‘horrid’ coverage she received in her time as Tanaiste.

A close friend told us: “Mary has been picked on because she’s a woman and because she’s from Donegal. Why should she offer interviews now to a hostile press which has been nothing short of horrid?”

Then there is Joan Burton who accused Vincent Browne of being sexist because he treated her the same way he treats all of his guests.

There was also some campaign by 3 women down the country which basically amounted to "Vote for us because were women".

Quackles

mystique150 wrote: »

Yes the way politics is conducted does no favours for women and your the perfect example. Childcare at government and local level for women in politics would be a step in the right direction.

But I made a decision that I want to spend my free time with my family. It's not like that was forced upon me. I don't think there's a party out there who wouldn't welcome a woman with open arms, because - lets face it - it looks good to have a gender mix. However, if they were to favour me because of my gender and I was elected tomorrow, I would not be the best person for the job, because I have made my decision my family would always come first. No amount of childcare or quotas would change that. It's a mindset. Public representatives need to give a huge amount of their personal time to perform effectively. I wouldn't be willing to do that, and I'm sure there are plenty like me out there.

mystique150

SugarHigh wrote: »

You haven't explained how any of this would work. Your solution so far is "lets artificially inflate the number of women in politics and then that will somehow solve the problem"
You also completely ignore the fact it diminishes the achievement of any woman in politics because it puts a question mark over her head as to whether it is only her ovaries that got her there.

Obviously numbers are just part of the problem, however without somehow addressing the low numbers of women in politics we can’t address the latter. Yes there have been successful women in politics and some of them may see a quota system as an insult. However, I believe many women feel isolated and demoralised in politics due to their lower representation.

28064212 wrote: »

The quota approach does nothing to address the problem, it just tries (and fails) to address the symptom.
Why should a single woman with no kids be able to avail of a system that is trying to address childcare issues that a man who minds his kids can't?

The voters can only vote for the representatives they are offered so it should be the party’s responsibility to actively recruit female candidates. This is where a quota system can at least give the public a choice. In my constituency there is only one female candidate this is something occurring throughout the country.
The childcare issue is only one barrier to women in politics. Women also face other issues including socialization and occupancy. It has been found that when female candidates actually stand for election for an open seat – they do as well as men. It is at this nomination stage where the symptom exists.

SugarHigh wrote: »

Female politicians in Ireland already rely far too much on their gender. It should not be possible to use gender as political currency.
Then there is Joan Burton who accused Vincent Browne of being sexist because he treated her the same way he treats all of his guests.
There was also some campaign by 3 women down the country which basically amounted to "Vote for us because were women".

How do female politicians currently rely on their gender? Joan Burton was a fool the night she appeared on Vincent Brown. Enda Kenny refuses to even engage with him. What’s your point? Is it not the democratic right of those three women to stand for an issue they believe in?

Quackles wrote: »

But I made a decision that I want to spend my free time with my family. It's not like that was forced upon me. I don't think there's a party out there who wouldn't welcome a woman with open arms, because - lets face it - it looks good to have a gender mix. However, if they were to favour me because of my gender and I was elected tomorrow, I would not be the best person for the job, because I have made my decision my family would always come first. No amount of childcare or quotas would change that. It's a mindset. Public representatives need to give a huge amount of their personal time to perform effectively. I wouldn't be willing to do that, and I'm sure there are plenty like me out there.

You’ve outlined a number of important issues here. First of all it’s very clear that a gender mix is good in politics. Second of all political parties welcome women. However, there is a shortage of women within the parties. Why? All across the world governments are faced with a similar problem. According to a Canadian study women have to be actively encouraged and often have to be asked a number of times to stand before they agree. When they do, they are as likely to be successful as a man. A quota system may encourage the parties to address this issue. As for your personal situation, I empathize and think had a support mechanism been in place it may have eased the pressure.

paul71 wrote: »

There is a perfectly good quota for women in place already.
50% of the electorate are women thats all thats needed.

But that is not the case on polling day. The majority of candidates we can choose from today are men. Where is the equality there?

paul71 wrote: »

The only reason it is male dominated is because not enough women decide to become active, so the responsibilty lies with women to become more active.

Indeed. Women are more reluctant to become active. This is why incentives are necessary.
Ireland is already lagging behind many of our European counterparts who addressed these very issues from the 1970’s onwards. It is only a matter of time before a world or EU organisation will make us address this issue if we can’t or don’t want to do so ourselves.

Chardee MacDennis

mystique150 wrote: »

Obviously numbers are just part of the problem, however without somehow addressing the low numbers of women in politics we can’t address the latter. Yes there have been successful women in politics and some of them may see a quota system as an insult. However, I believe many women feel isolated and demoralised in politics due to their lower representation.

The voters can only vote for the representatives they are offered so it should be the party’s responsibility to actively recruit female candidates. This is where a quota system can at least give the public a choice. In my constituency there is only one female candidate this is something occurring throughout the country.
The childcare issue is only one barrier to women in politics. Women also face other issues including socialization and occupancy. It has been found that when female candidates actually stand for election for an open seat – they do as well as men. It is at this nomination stage where the symptom exists.

How do female politicians currently rely on their gender? Joan Burton was a fool the night she appeared on Vincent Brown. Enda Kenny refuses to even engage with him. What’s your point? Is it not the democratic right of those three women to stand for an issue they believe in?

You’ve outlined a number of important issues here. First of all it’s very clear that a gender mix is good in politics. Second of all political parties welcome women. However, there is a shortage of women within the parties. Why? All across the world governments are faced with a similar problem. According to a Canadian study women have to be actively encouraged and often have to be asked a number of times to stand before they agree. When they do, they are as likely to be successful as a man. A quota system may encourage the parties to address this issue. As for your personal situation, I empathize and think had a support mechanism been in place it may have eased the pressure.

But that is not the case on polling day. The majority of candidates we can choose from today are men. Where is the equality there?

Indeed. Women are more reluctant to become active. This is why incentives are necessary.
Ireland is already lagging behind many of our European counterparts who addressed these very issues from the 1970’s onwards. It is only a matter of time before a world or EU organisation will make us address this issue if we can’t or don’t want to do so ourselves.

lets start forcing young men into primary school teaching jobs as well shall we - since that seems to be made up of mostly women?

you;re talking crap, we've had two female tanaiste's and two female presidents in the last decade - if there isnt enough women in politics maybe its coz they dont want to be.

There is no barrier to entry here, dont kid yourself...

28064212

mystique150 wrote: »

However, I believe many women feel isolated and demoralised in politics due to their lower representation.

So do many gay people. Can you give any reason for female quotas that doesn't also apply to gay people? Or black people, travellers, gingers, fat people...

mystique150 wrote: »

It is only a matter of time before a world or EU organisation will make us address this issue if we can’t or don’t want to do so ourselves.

Would absolutely never happen. An outside organisation telling us who we can and can't vote for? Out of curiosity, what EU or world organisations have female quotas?

Are there any barriers to women entering politics that aren't self-imposed? No, there is not.

tomcf

Women have to become more active and at a younger age - before they have children ( which is usually around 30). Leadership must come from women's organisations and women already in politics. Until they form a critical mass of party members, discussions of quotas are irrelevant because if they don't join they can hardly expect to be selected. They can try and change the system from within or wait for someone to do it for them. In the 1970s some of them refused to join established political parties because of the patriarchal nature of those parties. If enough of them had joined then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. On the issue of whether things would be better with more women... Mary Harney and Health, Mary Hannafin abolished Combat Poverty, Mary Coughlan...

Fear na gCrub

To the best of my knowledge the group with the lowest female representation at this election aren't any of the parties but the independents. Who do you blame for this? And how could a quota system be enforced?

SugarHigh

mystique150 wrote: »

However, I believe many women feel isolated and demoralised in politics due to their lower representation.

Would anyone who feels this way actually be any good as a politician? If you are intimidated by men I really don't think you are a strong enough person for politics.

The voters can only vote for the representatives they are offered so it should be the party’s responsibility to actively recruit female candidates.

And the parties can only recruit those who apply. Less women apply so why should those who actually do apply get an advantage over the men when they clearly haven't been put off applying.

This is where a quota system can at least give the public a choice.

Give the public a choice by manipulating the numbers.

In my constituency there is only one female candidate this is something occurring throughout the country.

So why didn't you run? Or is it a case like Science where everyone woman wants more women in Science but no themselves.

The childcare issue is only one barrier to women in politics. Women also face other issues including socialization and occupancy. It has been found that when female candidates actually stand for election for an open seat – they do as well as men. It is at this nomination stage where the symptom exists.

So they aren't being held back at all then? It is completely the fault of not enough women trying. This seems like their responsibility not the systems.

How do female politicians currently rely on their gender? Joan Burton was a fool the night she appeared on Vincent Brown. Enda Kenny refuses to even engage with him. What’s your point? Is it not the democratic right of those three women to stand for an issue they believe in?

The sexism card gets played too easily whenever things get tough. Joan and Mary both used the sexist card when it was completely unjustified. My problem with the 3 women was they literally only had one policy and that was to be women.

However, there is a shortage of women within the parties. Why?

Because less women try to get into politics. This is completely their fault.

According to a Canadian study women have to be actively encouraged and often have to be asked a number of times to stand before they agree. When they do, they are as likely to be successful as a man. A quota system may encourage the parties to address this issue.

If someone has to be nagged into becoming a politician than tbh I don't want them. At the moment the women in politics are there because they want to be not because they constantly nagged. It also implies that women aren't capable of making the right choice on their own so we basically have to nag them into it. Women have the right to enter politics and if they choose not to then it is completely their choice and who are we to try and change their minds? It's effectively saying "We gave you the choice and now we'll push you into the right one because you aren't capable of doing it on your own". Just like in Science we artificially push women into it because not enough of them decide to do it on their own. Who are we to say the choices they are making are not good enough?

But that is not the case on polling day. The majority of candidates we can choose from today are men. Where is the equality there?

50/50 does not imply equality especially if you get their through sexist quotas. Just because we don't have 50/50 does not mean we don't have equality. Nothing is holding women back apart form themselves. This isn't the systems fault and why should the system bend over backwards to get people involved in politics who don't want to be?

Indeed. Women are more reluctant to become active. This is why incentives are necessary.

Why should we insensitive people who don't want to get involved in politics to get involved in politics? How about they make up their own minds and you stop patronising them by deciding they are making the wrong choice,

SugarHigh

28064212 wrote: »

So do many gay people. Can you give any reason for female quotas that doesn't also apply to gay people? Or black people, travellers, gingers, fat people....

Exactly. She basically just wants to manipulate the numbers through sexist measures to give an artificial look of equality.

Ciaran

tomcf wrote: »

Is there any significance in the fact that 80% of the voters on this site are male?

Yes. It indicates that this site is on the internet.

Cakes.

Women campaigned for years to be treated equally and having a different quota to male candidates would not be equal so this would go against what they campaigned for. It is also Sexist and undemocratic. Women can become involved in Politics if they want and should not do because it would be easier for them to be elected.

im invisible

SugarHigh wrote: »

..If women truly are just as capable as men then why would they need special treatment? Seems a bit patronising.

Quackles wrote: »

...I don't want a second rate representative just because she's a she. I want the best there is, regardless of gender.

i think it could be a good thing, i mean they cant be any worse than the guys we have at the moment...

mystique150

28064212 wrote: »

Would absolutely never happen. An outside organisation telling us who we can and can't vote for? Out of curiosity, what EU or world organisations have female quotas?

Here is a map of gender quotas from around the world. The quotas are either based on a voluntary system, reserved seat system or by legislation
http://www.quotaproject.org/. These can also be gender neutral, whereby neither women nor men occupy a majority. This may seem less sexist to either group but still favours equal representation. There are already established quota systems within Europe for the election of MPs. Belguim, Spain, Portugal, France and Solvenia have legislative quotas. Sweden, Netherlands, Austria, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Luxembourg, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Greece, Romania, Hungary, Malta all have party quotas. Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Bulgaria, Latvia, Slovakia, Cyprus and Ireland don’t have any quota system (Women in European politics – time for action http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=463). The report is well written and unbiased and offers excellent arguments from both sides of the debate.

tomcf wrote: »

Women have to become more active and at a younger age - before they have children ( which is usually around 30). Leadership must come from women's organisations and women already in politics. Until they form a critical mass of party members, discussions of quotas are irrelevant because if they don't join they can hardly expect to be selected. They can try and change the system from within or wait for someone to do it for them. In the 1970s some of them refused to join established political parties because of the patriarchal nature of those parties. If enough of them had joined then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. On the issue of whether things would be better with more women... Mary Harney and Health, Mary Hannafin abolished Combat Poverty, Mary Coughlan...

I agree wholeheartedly, a change in thinking or a type of political movement would be more beneficial in the long run. However, a quota system within the parties may help. I personally didn’t think much of either Mary Hannafin or Mary Harney but they are only two people who were involved in a very large political mess.

mystique150

SugarHigh wrote: »

So why didn't you run? Or is it a case like Science where everyone woman wants more women in Science but no themselves.

I’m in full time education right now doing a research postgrad in science of all things! I decided that for myself too!

28064212

mystique150 wrote: »

Here is a map of gender quotas from around the world. The quotas are either based on a voluntary system, reserved seat system or by legislation
http://www.quotaproject.org/.

You completely missed the point. You claimed that some "world or EU organisation will make us address this issue". What world or EU organisations have female quotas? The European Commission? The UN General Assembly? The UN Inter-Agency Network on Women and Gender Equality? The answer's no, none* of the EU or world bodies have quotas in their own divisions. What makes you think they'd force member countries to implement something so patently undemocratic that they don't do themselves?

You also haven't answered this question: Can you give any reason for female quotas that doesn't also apply to gay people? Or black people, travellers, gingers, fat people....

* as far as I know, feel free to provide any examples

mystique150

28064212 wrote: »

You completely missed the point. You claimed that some "world or EU organisation will make us address this issue". What world or EU organisations have female quotas? The European Commission? The UN General Assembly? The UN Inter-Agency Network on Women and Gender Equality? The answer's no, none* of the EU or world bodies have quotas in their own divisions. What makes you think they'd force member countries to implement something so patently undemocratic that they don't do themselves?

You also haven't answered this question: Can you give any reason for female quotas that doesn't also apply to gay people? Or black people, travellers, gingers, fat people....

* as far as I know, feel free to provide any examples

First of all I also provided a report from the EU commission which lists the quota systems currently in place in different European countries. The report recommend that gender equality should be dealt with within the EU. It is certainly not an issue which will go away quietly and one that will at the very least be addressed by the EU. The report is on the right hand column of the attached link. Perhaps you didn't see it? (Please see link entitled related document(http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=463)) I can't upload it as it is too big. So yes there are currently quotas in place which are accepted by the EU and may be one of the options incorporated within EU policy to address gender inequality. I outlined quota systems already in place within European countries in my previous post which gives you some examples. If a quota system is not the preferred option for the country, the issue will still have to be addressed in some other form to increase the female representative and this is something recognized at an EU and UN level.

As for your second comment, I do believe that minority groups also deserve representation at the government level. In the EU, too many people belonging to minorities still face threats, discrimination and racism. Their barriers to politics include economic, political differences, social and cultural life. How do we include everyone? In Romania for instance, the Roma have established their own political party and special provisions are in place at a government level to ensure that they are represented which is a system called 'proportional representation'. In the case of the Roma that is 5% (http://www.unc.edu/euce/eusa2009/papers/stefanova_11I.pdf). This is really a quota under another guise.

SugarHigh

So yes there are currently quotas in place which are accepted by the EU

That isn't what he said and you know it. You don't like giving straight answers do you?

As for your second comment, I do believe that minority groups also deserve representation at the government level. In the EU, too many people belonging to minorities still face threats, discrimination and racism

Just because there isn't a black gay man involved in politics does not mean that black gay men are somehow at a disadvantage.

If all 2 seats in my constituency get filled by women will I cease to represented. Are women incapable of representing men politically? No of course not.

You don't need to be a member of a group to work in their interest. It is up to that group to vote for policies that work in their interest and if these policies aren't being put forward than they should run themselves. There isn't a barrier to running they simply choose not to. You are deciding that they by choosing not they are making the wrong choice and you condone nagging them into making the right choice because you clearly and rather patronizingly believe they are incapable of doing it their own.

Why don't you just allow women to make their own choices instead of trying to coerce them into doing what you believe they should but refuse to do yourself?

mystique150

SugarHigh wrote: »

That isn't what he said and you know it. You don't like giving straight answers do you?

To be honest, I don’t know how else I could answer the question, how do you think I should have responded? He asked where the mandates would come from? I said the EU and I also provided a document to back up my statement. He asked for examples and I gave examples of European countries and the type of system that these have adopted. It’s a straightforward response.

SugarHigh wrote: »

Just because there isn't a black gay man involved in politics does not mean that black gay men are somehow at a disadvantage

But yet gay black men represent what fraction of the population? Perhaps 0.01% at a hazard guess? As already stated here on the thread women represent 50%. At least think out your rhetorical and hypothetical statements.

SugarHigh wrote: »

If all 2 seats in my constituency get filled by women will I cease to represented. Are women incapable of representing men politically? No of course not.You don't need to be a member of a group to work in their interest. It is up to that group to vote for policies that work in their interest and if these policies aren't being put forward than they should run themselves.

Yes, but by having a representative, these issues have greater priority. This is pretty much accepted across the board. If it wasn’t, the EU/UN etc wouldn’t be commissioning reports on the very issue.

SugarHigh wrote: »

There isn't a barrier to running they simply choose not to. You are deciding that they by choosing not they are making the wrong choice and you condone nagging them into making the right choice because you clearly and rather patronizingly believe they are incapable of doing it their own. Why don't you just allow women to make their own choices instead of trying to coerce them into doing what you believe they should but refuse to do yourself?

I have already provided arguments and references to the barriers for women and minorities in government, however, you have not given me any evidence to suggest that there are no barriers? Do you feel that men/women/minorities etc all have equal access to government? If so I would like to see that backed up? I at least did a little bit of research, you have just given your opinion.

I never thought before this election that I might ever possibly consider politics. However, following this election, my dissatisfaction with the current political system and a lack of options, I think this is something I will have to address or at the very least support from now on.

3greenrizla's

Sorry if I have missed the point, but is treating someone differently on grounds of gender not sexism?

others have mentioned Mary Robinson - a personal heroine and I am sure if a poll was put up most boardsies would agree - is a great example of women in politics.

Another (not so great) example is Mary Harney....

I've never voted on grounds of gender & don't think anyone should.

oh, & why can't the childrens father/lady's partner put the kids to bed when the mother is out canvassing/on political business or should the quota also apply to single fathers?

If I was a Ginger, Single Father, Traveller, transsexual should I be automatically elected?

banquo

mystique150 wrote: »

It is difficult for female politicians. First of all to get a foot in the door at a local level, politics are often conducted in the local pubs at so called 'clinics'. This can be difficult for women for a couple of reasons. Some women may have children and find evening constituency work difficult, others may just find it awkward engaging with people in this type of environment.

Second of all many of the female politicians have come from political families and instantly have a foot in the door. Mary O' Rourke comes from a large political family in the Linehans. Deirdre Clune and Kathleen Lynch also came from political backgrounds.

Obviously there are exceptional women like Mary Robinson who made their own political career but should a woman be exceptional in order to carve a political standing? I think not! There is currently a government in place mostly consisting of men and I would say very few of them are doing a job that a woman couldn't also do and may even do it better.

There is for example a difference in types of occupation between women and men, with women more often involved in care work, both privately within the family and publicly such the care of the elderly and children. Surely, these agendas should also be addressed by women and perhaps then such issues would be dealt with better?

If such areas were of higher priority it may be possible that more women would feel motivated to enter politics but due the current minority position women have within the government, we are currently missing out. A quota system whether voluntary or compulsory would help address these issues and possibly would only be needed for maybe two terms in order to bring the numbers to a level playing field. As it stands, the current system does little to encourage women.

http://www.idea.int/publications/wip2/upload/Sweden.pdf

It's undemocratic, end of. Pressure, maybe. Encouragement, absolutely. Actual quotas? Stop living in the 60s. Nothing stopping anyone putting their name on the ballot and ringing doorbells.

SugarHigh

mystique150 wrote: »

To be honest, I don’t know how else I could answer the question, how do you think I should have responded? He asked where the mandates would come from? I said the EU and I also provided a document to back up my statement. He asked for examples and I gave examples of European countries and the type of system that these have adopted. It’s a straightforward response.

You haven't shown anything to imply we would be forced to implement a quota.

But yet gay black men represent what fraction of the population? Perhaps 0.01% at a hazard guess? As already stated here on the thread women represent 50%. At least think out your rhetorical and hypothetical statements.

Your reading comprehension is severely lacking. My point is that just because we don't have a 50/50 split does not indicate women are at a disadvantage when entering politics. It simply shows a lack of interest.

Yes, but by having a representative, these issues have greater priority. This is pretty much accepted across the board. If it wasn’t, the EU/UN etc wouldn’t be commissioning reports on the very issue.

It is the voter that gives issues a priority. Women make up 50% of voters so I fail to see how their wants and issues are not being represented.

I have already provided arguments and references to the barriers for women and minorities in government, however, you have not given me any evidence to suggest that there are no barriers? Do you feel that men/women/minorities etc all have equal access to government? If so I would like to see that backed up? I at least did a little bit of research, you have just given your opinion.

Yes I do believe it is equal among the sexes and races. The only divide is between the rich and the poor. It is up to you to prove otherwise which you have not done so. You haven't pointed out one barrier that couldn't also apply to a man. You also haven't explained how quotas would solve the problems you claim of it being more difficult to enter politics. Quotas only help those who are already entering politics.

SugarHigh

3greenrizla's wrote: »

Sorry if I have missed the point, but is treating someone differently on grounds of gender not sexism?

You're not going to get an answer to this question because it completely rips apart the whole argument of "Quotas for equality".:D

"Equality through inequality." They fail to see the problem.

Bullseye1

I'm all for more women coming into politics but no quotas. It's up to the government to ensure it becomes more attractive for women and mothers in particular to enter the Dail.

The Brigadier

3greenrizla's wrote: »

If I was a Ginger, Single Father, Traveller, transsexual should I be automatically elected?

Yes, just for the lulz

eddison

Women only want the top positions, and are not interested in more humble, or dangerous positions. Women like top political jobs, high RTE jobs, board room jobs. womens idea of equality is a goal of RTE becoming 100% female.

But the reality is that you will not find many sweeping the streets, or working in sewers, or roofing or laboring in fields day after day. These jobs are only fit for men, and that is why male suicide rate is 3 times higher than women. Also, fatal accidents at work for females are unheard of. Or any serious accidents.

Health and safety in the U.K. released statistics which say serious female injuries at work are non existent. Men are expected to die at work, not women. Look at nuclear plants in Japan... notice any women risking their lives with radiation sickness? no neither did I. I'm all for equality if women do dangerous, or not so glamorous work the same as men do.

Corsendonk

Why is this thread under Dublin North? While I admit Dublin North could have done with better quality candidates particularly female candidates apart from Miss Daly who I suspected benefitted from female transfers.