Gender Quotas

Centaur

The topic of gender quotas was discussed in the “Ivana Bacik. A Failed Political Entity?” thread. (I don't agree by the way).


This thread lurched across a few different topics, gender quotas being one of them. I entered into the fray towards the end and it was observed by a couple of posters that the thread had gone way off topic. In that vein I have decided to start a new thread to continue the discussion. I will include some of the final postings in the previous thread and continue on from there.

Centaur wrote: »

I agree with T runner regarding gender quotas. It seems to me that there are two basic arguments against the introduction of them. One is that if you introduce them for women then why not have them for other categories such as race, religion, age etc. The second one is that to introduce them would be to interfere with the democratic process. Indeed, in a survey last year of sitting women TD’s, many of them said they would be against quotas. This is an understandable point of view. It would challenge the idea that they got there on merit and perhaps undermine them. However it is an inescapable fact that woman are severely underrepresented in Irish politics. In the new Dáil, just 25 out of 166 TD’s are women.
With regards to the first reason for not introducing them I will make a couple of points. Firstly, that for almost any category you care to mention they are populated in equal numbers by men and women. Secondly, and more importantly, there is nothing that defines you more from cradle to the grave than gender. In terms of your position within society and how society treats you, your hopes and expectations, your role as defined by culture and personal preference, gender has the most significant influence. As regards the second objection I would argue that it is already undemocratic that effectively 50% of the population are not properly represented. Being a TD is not just about doing a job. Our elected representatives should reflect the electorate. Patently this is not the case.

Thirdfox wrote: »

I don't know why the mods haven't separated the PR, quotas etc issue from the main thread (I've reported the issue already).

Seeing as this is the case - I'll contribute my opinion on the quota issue. If our elected representatives have to represent the exact make up of our society, where are the disabled TDs, the Polish TDs etc etc? It will be impossible to have a quota for every possible criteria (sex, race, disablility, traveller status, sexual orientation, age - these are all covered by non-discrimination legislation). How many Traveller TDs do we have in the Dail?

On the other hand - I'm not dead set against quotas - if it can be shown that it really is necessary. Keeping an open mind on this issue.

Regards

James Jones wrote: »

Gender quotas for women should automatically result in quotas being required for all of the other grounds for discrimination. We would have to have a representative amount of single and separated parents (even though Bertie Ahern, as a separated father did SFA for separated fathers), a representative amount of gays and a representative amount of Transsexual people (a different ground). We would also have to have a representative amount of Travellers and disabled people as well as different religions and obviously something would have to be done for the Polish and other races...

Super_Sonic wrote: »

As regards quotas I bring up my previous examples of Primary Teaching and I.T.

What would happen if we introduced quotas in these professions?

Primary Teaching - males are grossly under represented so introduce a quota for a minimum percentage of males per school. Seeing as the under representation is so great primary teaching would be very, very likely to result in a guaranteed job for a male even if he scraped through college. That could possibly result in lowering the standard of teaching in Ireland. (Some claim that this is already happening on an unofficial basis as the Department want pupils to have more male role models)

I.T. - Just use the same argument above and substitute "male" with "female" etc.

I cannot see the equality in the above examples just blatant positive discrimination.

Thirdfox says that it would be impossible to have a quota for every possible criteria. That may be the case but as I pointed out in my original posting women are represented in equal numbers to men in all of the categories that you mentioned. That is to say to introduce quotas for women would not be to prefer them over another category as they traverse all categories. For instance whereas you could say that 50% of disabled are women and vice versa you could not say that 50% of disabled are Polish and vice versa. Women are not just some sort of special interest group or category. They are part of the very fabric of our society and civilisation. In that regard I think it is slightly misleading to compare them in that way.


In an attempt to back up my point I did a little exercise. (Too much time on my hands). I counted up the number of independents who ran for election and ratio of male to females. By my calculations there were 184 men and 19 women which is a ratio of 9:1. The reason I chose Independents is that it is a completely free choice for the individual and not subject to the mercy of selection committees and trying to defeat incumbents.



It is an interesting statistic I think. It indicates that women are far more reluctant to enter politics than men. Another interpretation is that there are barriers to women entering politics that are not present for men. Alternatively you could say that men are far more interested in entering politics than women. Whatever way you look at it, it is obvious there is a striking imbalance. I would hypothesise that if 50% of the voting population were Jewish they would be far better represented than just 10%. It seems evident therefore that in the sphere of politics women are not being properly accommodated. Between men and women there are many things that we have in common and many things that are different. A corollary of this is that in some respects we have different needs and concerns. The differences, whatever they are, are precluding women from being involved in politics to the same degree as men and therefore they are not being properly represented.



This is fundamentally undemocratic. The only way to solve this, at least in the short term, is to introduce quotas, as this situation has perpetuated itself for too long. Perhaps at some time in the future they will no longer be necessary but for now they definitely are.

gcgirl

TBH i'm not sure about the ''Gender Quota'' thing as i think a person should be voted on merit, Some people are trying to balance it up since we do have a country of 50% men and 50% women for a proper representation of both sexes!

Bobjims

gcgirl wrote: »

TBH i'm not sure about the ''Gender Quota'' thing as i think a person should be voted on merit, Some people are trying to balance it up since we do have a country of 50% men and 50% women for a proper representation of both sexes!

+1 on this... People should be given jobs/voted for based on their skill and ability to perform the task at hand, not based on their sex, race, sexual orientation, etc...

Iompair

I probably wouldn't be in favour of quotas on the actual people elected, but a 50/50 gender quota for the people running for seats in the first place would mean more women available for you to vote for if you wish.

Don't know how this would work in the real world but it popped into my head during the week.

johngalway

It's seems to me, as a casual observer only, that, the issue here is one primarily of child care in this country. To enable more women to enter politics it would be of more benefit to the entire country to improve the childcare situation, and indeed all the issues surrounding the decision to have a family, rather than the cop out and simplistic proposal to discriminate against men which in real terms does nothing to benefit women.

I too believe people should be ran and elected on merit. Not some sexist notion of score settling or hobbling the other gender.

What ever happened to the feminist cry for equality? It seems hypocritical now thanks to proposals such as gender quotas.

cavedave

gcgirl TBH i'm not sure about the ''Gender Quota'' thing as i think a person should be voted on merit,

But the evidence suggests they are not voted for on merit. the evidence is that female politicans are more able than male ones. which suggests females are discriminated against in politics
Why Do Congresswomen Outperform
Congressmen?

Analyzing changes within districts over time, we find that congresswomen secure roughly 9 percent more spending from federal discretionary programs than congressmen. Women also sponsor and cosponsor significantly more bills than their male colleagues.

Liam Byrne

I'm against discrimination and believe that we are overdue a move away from people not getting jobs based on their merit and ability.

So I'm 100% against gender quotas.

By all means remove the barriers (although I don't agree that childcare is one, because having children is a choice that should be made between two people)

But if, say, 22% of the population are disabled, putting in wheelchair ramps is good, while forcing th Dáil to have 36 disabled TDs - or even 36 disabled candidates - is wrong.

Tragedy

cavedave wrote: »

But the evidence suggests they are not voted for on merit. the evidence is that female politicans are more able than male ones. which suggests females are discriminated against in politics
Why Do Congresswomen Outperform
Congressmen?

The evidence suggests females aren't discriminated against in politics in Ireland.

Again, I'll suggest that people read this http://www.tcd.ie/ines/files/McElroy_and_Marsh_PRQ.pdf

On the basis of this extensive analysis the authors found that gender did not play a important role in candidate success or voter decision making in Ireland. Women candidates didn’t do significantly worse than male candidates in the aggregate. Nor did women seem to be discriminated against in terms of ballot order and rank in the analysis of the electronic data. The analysis of the individual-level data demonstrated that women didn’t seem to get votes disproportionately from female voters.

Commenting on the significance of the findings, authors, Dr McElroy and Professor Marsh said: “While none of the tests can be said to prove conclusively that gender is completely irrelevant in Irish elections, the article does test a rich variety of ways in which one could assent to female candidacy and we remain confident that if we have to look this hard to find any evidence of gender bias or effect in the Irish case, it cannot play a very significant role in voting behaviour.”

“In terms of an insight into the reasons for the continued underrepresentation of women in the Dáil, these figures do hint at supply side issues. It may be the case that increasing women’s political representation will depend on whether political parties have a strategic incentive to promote women.”

In short, more women need to run for political positions, almost as simple as that.

As for childcare? Many careers require long unsociable hours, why is being a politician a special case?

Macha

It should be about equal opportunities, not equal outcome. You can't make everything a perfect 50/50 split - life just isn't that simple. Plus, as johngalway says, this should be about removing barriers and a focus on quotas shifts the debate away from barriers.

But please don't knock all feminists - not all of us are in favour of quotas.

I think the whataboutery point is still relevant. How many people from disadvantaged backgrounds do we have in the Dail? In the world of politics where connections are key, I'd say your socio-economic standing is another important one.

johngalway

Macha wrote: »

It should be about equal opportunities, equal outcome.

But please don't knock all feminists - not all of us are in favour of quotas.

I think the whataboutery point is still relevant. How many people from disadvantaged backgrounds do we have in the Dail? In the world of politics where connections are key, I'd say your socio-economic standing is another important one.

Oh no, my means wasn't at all to knock feminists. More to point out Bacik is seen as a feminist, that feminists often used to call for equality, but what Bacik proposes isn't anything like equality.

As for socio-economic backgrounds, I'm all for giving people opportunities like ways into education to further their own ideas. But, like the topic of this thread, I don't support unfair and artificial ways of getting ahead. The individual needs to have the commitment and determination to get where they want to go, the correct opportunities then facilitate that person to move farther along the road they wish to travel.

cavedave

Tragedy

In short, more women need to run for political positions, almost as simple as that.

Thanks for the link.

Are women more likely to be ministers? If they are over represented as ministers in ratio to them being TD's would that imply female TD's were more competent?

gizmo555

cavedave wrote: »

Are women more likely to be ministers? If they are over represented as ministers in ratio to them being TD's would that imply female TD's were more competent?

Only if you pre-suppose ministers are actually chosen for their competence. Highly questionable in the cases of many of the outgoing government. Geographical factors, the need to repay favours, and to retain the support of key figures in the parliamentary party are all far more important than mere ability to do a half competent job.

cavedave

gizmo555

Only if you pre-suppose ministers are actually chosen for their competence. Highly questionable in the cases of many of the outgoing government. Geographical factors, the need to repay favours, and to retain the support of key figures in the parliamentary party are all far more important than mere ability to do a half competent job.

If competence in Irish politics requires these soft political skills then you could use that as a definition of "competent in Irish politics" as opposed to actually being able to run a country.

bleg

How about age quotas instead?

smiles302

I would consider gender quotas if and only if someone could point out one issue that is a woman's issue. Something that men would never discuss in government but women would.

I just don't see a need for artificially inflating the numbers of women.

The numbers are increasing, slowly. From 13.8% to 15.1%. I think the next few general elections will see this rise quite a bit faster, along with more younger people, *insert any group* etc.
While politics is playing out of the forefront of people's minds, more people will start to think they can do better.

Than traditionally assuming the political families (who tend to encourage sons into politics) know what it is they are doing.

Macha

smiles302 wrote: »

The numbers are increasing, slowly. From 13.8% to 15.1%. I think the next few general elections will see this rise quite a bit faster, along with more younger people, *insert any group* etc.
While politics is playing out of the forefront of people's minds, more people will start to think they can do better.

Than traditionally assuming the political families (who tend to encourage sons into politics) know what it is they are doing.

Oh it's something that needs to be tackled alright. I wouldn't have much faith in sitting back and waiting for the issue to resolve itself and the snails pace progress is not very encouraging.

As another poster discussed, there is no evidence to support discrimination among Irish voters or within political parties, which are practically crying out for female candidates.

Although, I do think the concept of role-models is an important one. Young boys all want to be soccer players, for obvious reasons. It would be interesting to see if there's any difference between the genders' attitudes towards politics as a career at varying age groups.

mystique150

smiles302 wrote: »

I would consider gender quotas if and only if someone could point out one issue that is a woman's issue. Something that men would never discuss in government but women would.

Men and women tend to have similar agendas but perspectives differ. Women may have different life experiences than men and these experiences will be given different levels of priority in government. For instance women give greater priority to women’s rights, violence against women and children. Female politicians may also prioritize equal pay and parental leave as these are issues that more often concern women. Male politicians can represent these agendas but they may not have had life experience in that area. To have a fair democracy we need the prospectives that women can offer on all issues ranging from social, health, education and foreign policies.

http://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/equality08-e.pdf

Rodin

Gender quotas are discriminatory.And discrimination on the basis of gender is wrong. End of discussion.

Rodin

mystique150 wrote: »

Men and women tend to have similar agendas but perspectives differ. Women may have different life experiences than men and these experiences will be given different levels of priority in government. For instance women give greater priority to women’s rights, violence against women and children. Female politicians may also prioritize equal pay and parental leave as these are issues that more often concern women. Male politicians can represent these agendas but they may not have had life experience in that area. To have a fair democracy we need the prospectives that women can offer on all issues ranging from social, health, education and foreign policies.

http://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/equality08-e.pdf

Do you mean PERspectives instead of PROspectives?

mystique150

Rodin wrote: »

Do you mean PERspectives instead of PROspectives?

Yes thats what I meant

Rodin wrote: »

Gender quotas are discriminatory.And discrimination on the basis of gender is wrong. End of discussion.

Many countries have adopted gender neutral quotas which don't discriminate against either sex but set a ceiling so that one sex cannot be overrepresented.

Tragedy

mystique150 wrote: »

Many countries have adopted gender neutral quotas which don't discriminate against either sex but set a ceiling so that one sex cannot be overrepresented.

That is discrimination.

smiles302

mystique150 wrote: »

Men and women tend to have similar agendas but perspectives differ. Women may have different life experiences than men and these experiences will be given different levels of priority in government. For instance women give greater priority to women’s rights, violence against women and children. Female politicians may also prioritize equal pay and parental leave as these are issues that more often concern women. Male politicians can represent these agendas but they may not have had life experience in that area. To have a fair democracy we need the prospectives that women can offer on all issues ranging from social, health, education and foreign policies.

http://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/equality08-e.pdf

But surely that argument extends that every single person will have a different life experience. A man whose sister/relative has been in a violent relationship is going to give more of a priority towards violence against women than someone with no personal experience in that area.

I don't understand why I am supposed to feel under-represented as a woman simply because the numbers of women in the Dail is so low. Individual opinions, stances and policies matter a hell of a lot more than gender.

Macha

Rodin wrote: »

Gender quotas are discriminatory.And discrimination on the basis of gender is wrong. End of discussion.

Hardly. There is clearly a wider issue on women's participation in politics. Quotas might not be the answer but there's a debate there to be had on other possible solutions.

mystique150

smiles302 wrote: »

Individual opinions, stances and policies matter a hell of a lot more than gender.

I agree both men and women have a common agenda when entering politics but opinions, stances and policies can collectively differ by gender.

A growing body of research is indicating that women have different political styles and have brought these values to leadership, including a strong sense of community which can lead to greater levels of political consensus. Female negotiating skills can also be less aggressive than a male approach which can lead to greater cooperation. Women are also thought to be more compassionate which can apply to broader levels of society (http://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/equality08-e.pdf). These are just a couple of examples but through the equal inclusion of women in politics, these different political styles can offer positive benefits for society and government.

Tragedy

Can you tell me where in that report it shows that female politicians have brought different values to leadership and greater co-operation to politics?

I started reading it but it's far too long.

Also, can you elaborate on the 'growing body of research' indicating such, as thus far you've just re-posted the same link.

Centaur

To say that to introduce quotas would be to discriminate against men is one way of looking at it. It’s a hard argument to make though when you consider that men constitute 85% of the Dáil. Effectively what we have at the moment is institutionalised discrimination. Again, as I said before, there are barriers to women entering politics that are not present for men. How else can the disparity be explained?


Johngalway raises the issue of childcare. There is no doubt that this is major factor in women not putting themselves forward. His argument is that if we as a society “improve the childcare situation” it would free up more women and proportionally increase their involvement in politics. The reality is that this is not going to happen any time soon, particularly given the current state of the economy. It infers that women will just have to wait around for an indeterminate time period for their situation to improve.


Moreover the childcare “situation” is not just about money. Many women want to stay at home to rear their children, or at least have a work life balance that allows them to spend as much time as possible with them. Should this lifestyle choice preclude them from entering politics? Olwyn Enright resigned recently over this very issue, citing the demands of political life being incompatible with her desire to spend more time with her children. Surely to have proper representation women like Olwyn Enright should be accommodated if it is her wish to remain in politics. This can only happen if there is a political will to do it, and the political will to do it will only come if there are more women parliamentarians. Equally the whole issue of childcare in the wider society would receive more emphasis.


Being a politician is not like doing a job with narrow defined role that suits a person with a particular skill set. For sure you want people with intelligence and intellect but ultimately it is about representation. This means representing all of the people and all of their concerns when policy is being framed. If you leave out a massive chunk of the population then there is not an equality of representation.

mystique150

Tragedy wrote: »

Can you tell me where in that report it shows that female politicians have brought different values to leadership and greater co-operation to politics?
I started reading it but it's far too long.
Also, can you elaborate on the 'growing body of research' indicating such, as thus far you've just re-posted the same link.

Its on page 38-42, that particular section quotes other reports within the text in reference to the 'growing body of support' and can be found in the reference section of that chapter.

Tragedy

Centaur wrote: »

To say that to introduce quotas would be to discriminate against men is one way of looking at it. It’s a hard argument to make though when you consider that men constitute 85% of the Dáil.

How is it a hard argument to make? It doesn't matter what percentage of the Dáil men constitute, gender quotas are still discriminatory.

Effectively what we have at the moment is institutionalised discrimination.

If that's true, why haven't you or anyone else elaborated on this institutionalised discrimination?

Again, as I said before, there are barriers to women entering politics that are not present for men.

What percentage of families with children that require childcare have only one parent working? Most families I know of have both parents working now. Surely that means for a large proportion of women and men, they face exactly the same issue when it comes to childcare.

How else can the disparity be explained?

It's been explained before, Women simply have less interest in entering politics then Men. Can you prove this not to be the case?

Johngalway raises the issue of childcare. There is no doubt that this is major factor in women not putting themselves forward.

Do you actually have any proof of this though?

His argument is that if we as a society “improve the childcare situation” it would free up more women and proportionally increase their involvement in politics. The reality is that this is not going to happen any time soon, particularly given the current state of the economy. It infers that women will just have to wait around for an indeterminate time period for their situation to improve.

Or they could, yaknow, pay for childcare like almost all working mothers already do?

Moreover the childcare “situation” is not just about money. Many women want to stay at home to rear their children, or at least have a work life balance that allows them to spend as much time as possible with them. Should this lifestyle choice preclude them from entering politics?

Yes. Just like it precludes them from being a Doctor, an Accountant, and god knows how many other job types.

Olwyn Enright resigned recently over this very issue, citing the demands of political life being incompatible with her desire to spend more time with her children. Surely to have proper representation women like Olwyn Enright should be accommodated if it is her wish to remain in politics.

Why should we? Olwyn had the choice to spend more time with her children, or continue in her career. She had the choice and she made the choice. There was no discrimination or inequality in that. I'm sure most male politicians face the same choice, just because they choose differently doesn't mean women are being discriminated against.

Being a politician is not like doing a job with narrow defined role that suits a person with a particular skill set. For sure you want people with intelligence and intellect but ultimately it is about representation. This means representing all of the people and all of their concerns when policy is being framed. If you leave out a massive chunk of the population then there is not an equality of representation.

A massive chunk of the population isn't being left out.
A massive chunk of the population doesn't have members willing to represent it.
Their choice.

smiles302

mystique150 wrote: »

Its on page 38-42, that particular section quotes other reports within the text in reference to the 'growing boy of support' and can be found in the reference section of that chapter.

That survey comes to the conclusion

The
responses in this chapter show that women overwhelmingly felt that they had a responsibility to
represent women, but that this is not shared equally
among all women

So some women feel they have a responsibly to represent women and women's interests. Some don't.

It also comes to the conclusion that women are far more interested in domestic issues such as child care and education while ignoring finance...

Following that "body of research" it seems a safer bet to lobby male politicians in your local area for child care services than to vote for a woman.

If we are going to attempt to group men and women into two separate "types" of politician.

Tragedy

mystique150 wrote: »

Its on page 38-42, that particular section quotes other reports within the text in reference to the 'growing boy of support' and can be found in the reference section of that chapter.

Thanks. It's interesting to see what the report actually says(rather than what you paraphrased).

Globally, there is a growing body of research that
has examined the leadership styles of women in
politics. One school of thought finds that women
have brought different styles and values to leadership, including a strong sense of community and
society, that they are more likely to build consensus,
are good at multi-tasking and tend to work harder.¹

That's very different from your

A growing body of research is indicating that women have different political styles and have brought these values to leadership

Do you see the difference between 'examined' and 'indicated'?

Further, it says

e. In addition, it is commonly thought
that women are more likely than men to encourage
cooperative behaviour, to be concerned with achieving consensus, and to favour a democratic approach
to decision making.¹

Commonly thought? Not good enough and hardly scientific or a growing body of evidence.

Among those who believed there was a noticeable
change, men in Africa, the Arab States and Asia
predominated.

I also went through the references, and they were mostly individual parliamentarians opinions and not studies or reports.

mystique150

smiles302 wrote: »

That survey comes to the conclusion

The survey didn't come to the inclusion, but the author's conclusion having reviewed the literature.

smiles302 wrote: »

So some women feel they have a responsibly to represent women and women's interests. Some don't.
It also comes to the conclusion that women are far more interested in domestic issues such as child care and education while ignoring finance...
Following that "body of research" it seems a safer bet to lobby male politicians in your local area for child care services than to vote for a woman.
If we are going to attempt to group men and women into two separate "types" of politician.

Yes it says that women may prioritize issues which are of greater interest to women than men. However, it does not say anywhere that women ignore finance and in fact it says on p 46 that women have had the least influence on financial matters in government due to their lower representation and are less likely to receive finance portfolios within government p. 64. On p. 65 the report elaborates that women's absence on these issues means that women's voices are not heard in determining financial budgets.

smiles302

he survey also finds that women remain concentrated in committees that deal with social issues, education, health and family affairs. While these committees are important, and oversee a large share of public expenditure, women are often absent from the debate on other issues, such as finance and foreign affairs.

The areas in which the respondents believed that women have had the least amount of influence are economic and trade matters, finance, foreign affairs and national security

that women tend to concentrate in certain committees such as those dealing with health and education. While these portfolios are important, as they often scrutinize a large share of public expenditure, women are often absent from or struggle for representation in other portfolios such as finance and foreign affairs.⁷ his research confirms the prevalence of this trend

The survey talked to people who are politicians. If you as a politician can't get your voice heard. I will not vote for you.

Plus the whole thing repeats itself over and over and over. Why in the world didn't they summarize into a few bullet points?

mystique150

Tragedy wrote: »

I also went through the references, and they were mostly individual parliamentarians opinions and not studies or reports.

http://teaching.fec.anu.edu.au/busn2007/Eagly%20et%20al_2001.pdf
This is a scientific document which reviews the differences in male and female approaches in leadership and they conclude the these differences offer very favorable implications for increasing representation of women. There is no shortage of material on the issue.

mystique150

smiles302 wrote: »

The survey talked to people who are politicians. If you as a politician can't get your voice heard. I will not vote for you.

Hence why women need better representation as a group within their own government.

smiles302 wrote: »

Plus the whole thing repeats itself over and over and over. Why in the world didn't they summarize into a few bullet points?

Yes the report is long and long winded. I should have looked for a better example but most government and political documents like this are written in a long and dragged out manner.

smiles302

mystique150 wrote: »

Hence why women need better representation as a group within their own government.

You still haven't given any reasons why women need women to represent them. The survey just repeats that we are under-represented. Also few women in physics and engineering. Doesn't mean we "need" more women in physics.

Give me one reason, why as a woman, I should vote for a woman over a man assuming their policies etc are the same.

Tragedy

mystique150 wrote: »

http://teaching.fec.anu.edu.au/busn2007/Eagly%20et%20al_2001.pdf
This is a scientific document which reviews the differences in male and female approaches in leadership they conclude the these differences offer very favorable implications for increasing representation of women. There is no shortage of material on the issue.

From the introduction:

..there is much less agreement about the behaviour of women and men once they attain such roles

I also searched it for mentions of "politic" and could only find one mention which was an opinion relayed by a female politician.


If you remember, what you said was "A growing body of research is indicating that women have different political styles and have brought these values to leadership".

I also read the conclusion, which can be pretty much summed up as "there differences were very small, but in other scenarios small differences can build up to be big differences"

Which isn't exactly conclusive.

Centaur

Here is an document that addresses some of the questions. It contains the summary of an Oireachtas report on what are the barriers that discourage women from entering politics. It is backed up by international research.

http://www.claimingourfuture.ie/wp-content/uploads/Claiming-Our-Future-More-women-in-politics-the-arguments.pdf

mystique150

Tragedy wrote: »

From the introduction:

I also searched it for mentions of "politic" and could only find one mention which was an opinion relayed by a female politician.


If you remember, what you said was "A growing body of research is indicating that women have different political styles and have brought these values to leadership".

I also read the conclusion, which can be pretty much summed up as "there differences were very small, but in other scenarios small differences can build up to be big differences"

Which isn't exactly conclusive.

I stand over what I said. Women do have different political styles. Leadership role qualities also spill over into politics. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that women have different qualities in leadership/government etc. I can provide more if you like?

Only this week the EU have announced that there is a need for more women on corporate boards and gender inequality is to ruled out in car insurance. Isn't it only a matter of time before we have to tackle gender inequality in government?

Tragedy

mystique150 wrote: »

I stand over what I said.

Of course you do, you stand over it so much you can't defend it.

Women do have different political styles. Leadership role qualities also spill over into politics. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that women have different qualities in leadership/government etc. I can provide more if you like?

By all means, as you've only linked two so far and both have been lacklustre at best.

Only this week the EU have announced that there is a need for more women on corporate boards and gender inequality is to ruled out in car insurance. Isn't it only a matter of time before we have to tackle gender inequality in government?

Gender inequality isn't to be ruled out in car insurance. Unless you're suggesting the EU ruling means to force every country to have exactly 50% men and 50% women insured at all times.

Gender inequality isn't the same as gender discrimination, and to claim that they are is laughable.

Tragedy

Centaur wrote: »

Here is an document that addresses some of the questions. It contains the summary of an Oireachtas report on what are the barriers that discourage women from entering politics. It is backed up by international research.

http://www.claimingourfuture.ie/wp-content/uploads/Claiming-Our-Future-More-women-in-politics-the-arguments.pdf

It is backed up by international research on Ireland?

Because I've already linked to an (award winning! ) report by Irish Academics on gender inequality and the possible reasons for such in Ireland.

Something neither you nor mystique seem to have even looked at. Odd that

I had a look at the document and found a couple of obvious errors.
For example;

The reality is that political
parties are the ones who control which candidates are put before voters in the first place,
and they have an overwhelming tendency to put forward male candidates.

Where is the evidence for this? Do you or mystique have any evidence that political parties in Ireland are deliberately choosing male over female candidates to put forward?

As for the 5 C's that are always bandied about :rolleyes:

Childcare – women are more likely to have this responsibility, and political
systems do not facilitate those with caring responsibilities.

An issue faced by both men and women as a stay at home mother is a fast disappearing norm

Cash – women have less access to resources than men, in particular the
resources needed to run a political campaign.

This is just a joke, do I even need to debunk it?

Confidence – women are less likely to put themselves forward for selection in
political parties.

Same as above.

Culture – the prevailing masculine culture and image of politics is a powerful
barrier for women.

Is there any proof for this? I've still yet to see any, and I've asked other gender quota supporters before.

Candidate selection process by the parties themselves – this process has
been identified as posing a significant obstacle to women‟s political participation.

This process has been identified as posing no obstacle to women's political participation in Ireland.

mystique150

Tragedy wrote: »

Gender inequality isn't to be ruled out in car insurance. Unless you're suggesting the EU ruling means to force every country to have exactly 50% men and 50% women insured at all times.

Gender inequality isn't the same as gender discrimination, and to claim that they are is laughable.

Well it means that women and men pay the same for car insurance. It falls under equality in pricing. Correct me if I have that wrong?

Tragedy

mystique150 wrote: »

Well it means that women and men pay the same for car insurance. It falls under equality in pricing. Correct me if I have that wrong?

What does that have to do with gender inequality in politics?

You implied that gender inequality(not having equal numbers of both gender) was the same as gender discrimination(discriminating against a gender) and then stated that a ruling on gender discrimination was a support for tackling gender inequality.

Ludicrous

mystique150

Tragedy wrote: »

What does that have to do with gender inequality in politics?
You implied that gender inequality(not having equal numbers of both gender) was the same as gender discrimination(discriminating against a gender) and then stated that a ruling on gender discrimination was a support for tackling gender inequality.

Ludicrous

Am....well the terms are exchangeable in this case as far as I understand it. Men were discriminated against due to higher payments of car insurance and due to principles of equality, the EU has said that men and women should pay the same (as in they are treated equally). I would feel that the car insurance issue is also a case of equality. How is that ludicrous?

In terms of your paper, it is a great study but you have also focused on the aspects that you think support your argument. The authors conclude that "Women’s representation is simply not a politicized issue". If the electorate is not aware of the issue, maybe thats why it does not have more focus? It also finishes with "political parties have no real incentive to promote them and may encourage them less for a host of reasons". A gender quota at a party level would quickly address this lack of incentive and should the electorate have the opportunity to vote for women, the study reports that women are as likely as men to be elected. The problem is getting women to stand in the first place.

Centaur

Tragedy wrote: »

It is backed up by international research on Ireland?

The Oireachtas report echoes international research. Are you going to split hairs over this?

Tragedy wrote: »

Because I've already linked to an (award winning! ) report by Irish Academics on gender inequality and the possible reasons for such in Ireland.

Something neither you nor mystique seem to have even looked at. Odd that

You had quoted the relevant bit for your argument. But in the spirit of this discussion and as you suggested I did read it. The report concludes that there is no significant bias in voting patterns for men and women. That is not really the issue though. The issue is the barriers that prevent women participating to the same degree as men. The report has some suggestions but no real analysis.

Tragedy wrote: »

I had a look at the document and found a couple of obvious errors.
For example;

Quote:
The reality is that political
parties are the ones who control which candidates are put before voters in the first place,
and they have an overwhelming tendency to put forward male candidates.

Where is the evidence for this? Do you or mystique have any evidence that political parties in Ireland are deliberately choosing male over female candidates to put forward?

It says they have a tendency to put forward male candidates. The evidence is in your own link. Page 4.

Tragedy wrote: »

As for the 5 C's that are always bandied about :rolleyes:

Quote:
An issue faced by both men and women as a stay at home mother is a fast disappearing norm

This is just a joke, do I even need to debunk it?

Quote:
Cash – women have less access to resources than men, in particular the
resources needed to run a political campaign.

Same as above.

Quote:
Confidence – women are less likely to put themselves forward for selection in
political parties.

Quote:
Culture – the prevailing masculine culture and image of politics is a powerful
barrier for women.

Is there any proof for this? I've still yet to see any, and I've asked other gender quota supporters before.

Quote:
Candidate selection process by the parties themselves – this process has
been identified as posing a significant obstacle to women‟s political participation.

This process has been identified as posing no obstacle to women's political participation in Ireland.

You can't just dismiss international research because it doesn't suit your argument.
You are very quick to ask for proof but yet you don't provide any yourself.:rolleyes:

Tragedy

mystique150 wrote: »

Am....well the terms are exchangeable in this case as far as I understand it.

As far as you understand it, gender inequality in numbers is the same as gender discrimination?
I just want to get a definite answer to this, because that seems to be what you've said.

Men were discriminated against due to higher payments of car insurance and due to principles of equality, the EU has said that men and women should pay the same (as in they are treated equally). I would feel that the car insurance issue is also a case of equality. How is that ludicrous?

Because you're claiming being discriminated against because you're a certain gender and forced to pay higher insurance premiums is the same as having 50% female representation in politics.

In terms of your paper, it is a great study but you have also focused on the aspects that you think support your argument. The authors conclude that "Women’s representation is simply not a politicized issue".

That's amusing, yet again you're twisting stuff to suit your own agenda.
The conclusion isn't "Women's representation is simply not a politicised issue".

It actually concludes

All things considered, it would appear that gender
does not play a big role in candidate success or voter
decision making in Ireland. While none of the tests
can be said to prove conclusively that gender is completely irrelevant in Irish elections, the article does
test a rich variety of ways in which one could assent
to female candidacy, and we remain confident that if
we have to look this hard to find any evidence of gender bias or effect in the Irish case, it cannot play a very
significant role in voting behavior. Women candidates
do not do significantly worse than male candidates in
the aggregate, even when one controls for just gender.
Women do not seem to be discriminated against in terms
of ballot order and rank in the analysis of the electronic
data. And finally, the analysis of the individual-level
data demonstrates that women do not seem to get
votes disproportionately from female voters. All in all,
it would seem gender in Ireland is not politicized. The
puzzle remains, however, that there is a general underrepresentation of women in elected office, not just in
Ireland, but across electoral democracies.
There may be a whole host of reasons why women
are represented in such poor figures in the Dáil, but
the actions of the electorate would not appear to be
responsible. Evidence from a survey of candidates
carried out by the authors in 2007 backs up this finding. When candidates were asked to consider why
there were so few women in the Dáil, only 17 percent
of respondents agreed with the statement, “Most voters preferred male candidates,” with no statistical
difference in the responses of male and female candidates. On the other hand, 80 percent of respondents
(83 percent of male and 72 percent of female candidates) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement,
“Not enough women came forward.” This echoes the
findings of Fox and Lawless (2004) on the United
States that women express significantly lower levels
of political ambition to hold elected office. While
only 29 percent agreed or strongly agreed with the
statement, “Women are not given fair opportunities by
parties,” the gender difference in this response was
rather startling; only 22 percent of men agreed with
the statement while more than 60 percent of women
candidates did so. While far from an ideal insight into
the reasons for the continued underrepresentation of
women in the Dáil, these figures do hint at supplyside issues. It may be the case that increasing women’s political representation will depend on whether
political parties have a strategic incentive to promote
women. Studies of candidates themselves suggest
that women are far less likely to seek public office
than men, they are less likely to think they are qualified to run, and they are less likely to be recruited
may account for the underrepresentation of women in
Ireland. While we have established that there is no
penalty for promoting women, there also appear to be
few advantages. Women’s representation is simply
not a politicized issue. Female candidates neither win
nor lose votes for their parties; as a result, political
parties have no real incentive to promote them and
may encourage them less for a host of reasons.

The argument of the article is that no evidence can be found to suggest that women are discriminated against, either by voters or by parties and that the issue seems to be on the supply of female candidates. The article suggests that increasing womens representation will require a strategic incentive for political parties to promote them not because political parties are 'keeping them down", but because women themselves need added encouragement and incentives to run.
Nowhere in the article does it show any evidence or proof that women are discriminated against in Irish politics.

If the electorate is not aware of the issue, maybe thats why it does not have more focus? It also finishes with "political parties have no real incentive to promote them and may encourage them less for a host of reasons". A gender quota at a party level would quickly address this lack of incentive and should the electorate have the opportunity to vote for women, the study reports that women are as likely as men to be elected. The problem is getting women to stand in the first place.

Why should we introduce a quota system when women can't be bothered to run? Women not being bothered to run /=/ discrimination.

Centaur wrote: »

The Oireachtas report echoes international research. Are you going to split hairs over this?

Yes, because international research has little relevance to the whys and hows of Irish Politics.

You had quoted the relevant bit for your argument. But in the spirit of this discussion and as you suggested I did read it. The report concludes that there is no significant bias in voting patterns for men and women. That is not really the issue though. The issue is the barriers that prevent women participating to the same degree as men. The report has some suggestions but no real analysis.

The barriers that also exist for men, yet that somehow doesn't get mentioned.

It says they have a tendency to put forward male candidates. The evidence is in your own link. Page 4.

Where exactly in the link does it say they have a tendency to put forward male candidates over female?

You can't just dismiss international research because it doesn't suit your argument.

Excuse me, I'm dismissing fabled international research because it isn't based on Ireland. It probably isn't even based on STV.

You are very quick to ask for proof but yet you don't provide any yourself.:rolleyes:

What do you want proof on exactly? You're the one claiming discrimination with nothing to back it up past "international research", who claims the 5 C's only affect women, and..well.. I could go on, but it's unnecessary.

I'll ask again.

Do you have any proof of women being discriminated against in politics in Ireland?
Do you have any proof to back up that the 5 C's affect only women, and only women in politics and again, in Ireland?

Centaur

Tragedy wrote: »

Yes, because international research has little relevance to the whys and hows of Irish Politics.

I don't know how you can make that assertion. International research has plenty of relevance.

Tragedy wrote: »

The barriers that also exist for men, yet that somehow doesn't get mentioned.

What barriers are these pray tell. Can you point me to a report?

Tragedy wrote: »

Where exactly in the link does it say they have a tendency to put forward male candidates over female?

Look at the chart.

Tragedy wrote: »

Excuse me, I'm dismissing fabled international research because it isn't based on Ireland. It probably isn't even based on STV.


What do you want proof on exactly? You're the one claiming discrimination with nothing to back it up past "international research", who claims the 5 C's only affect women, and..well.. I could go on, but it's unnecessary.

I'll ask again.

Do you have any proof of women being discriminated against in politics in Ireland?
Do you have any proof to back up that the 5 C's affect only women, and only women in politics and again, in Ireland?

I'm pretty sure an extensive Oireachtas report refers to Ireland

Quote:
Q: Why do women not enter politics if they have equal access - what exactly are the barriers that are discouraging them?
A: This question was explored extensively in the 2009 Oireachtas reoprt on Women's Participation in Politics. The findings of the report echo international research on the subject which shows that women face similar challenges throughout the world when it comes to entering politics.

Centaur

smiles302 wrote: »

You still haven't given any reasons why women need women to represent them. The survey just repeats that we are under-represented. Also few women in physics and engineering. Doesn't mean we "need" more women in physics.

Give me one reason, why as a woman, I should vote for a woman over a man assuming their policies etc are the same.

If a man and a woman have exactly the same policies there is no reason for you to choose one over the other. However that is extremely unlikely. If they are in the same party they will ostensibly have the same policies but it is more than likely that the range of their interest and emphasis differs.


The main issue is one of choice. If you had 100 men and 100 women the likelihood is that more of the women would be concerned about an issue such as childcare. What you want is a selection of candidates that reflect the full range of issues in proportion to the population. Ideally you would like to vote for someone with whom you agree on absolutely everything. You’d be very lucky to find such a person. If you increase the diversity of candidates running for election you increase the chances of finding someone who policies overlap with most of the issues that concern you. That is one of the reasons why we need more women in politics but not necessarily why you should vote for one.

Liam Byrne

Centaur wrote: »

Q: Why do women not enter politics if they have equal access - what exactly are the barriers that are discouraging them?
A: This question was explored extensively in the 2009 Oireachtas reoprt on Women's Participation in Politics. The findings of the report echo international research on the subject which shows that women face similar challenges throughout the world when it comes to entering politics.

If so, why not answer the question? What are the barriers? Is the lack of a gender quota one of them?

Liam Byrne

Centaur wrote: »

The main issue is one of choice. If you had 100 men and 100 women the likelihood is that more of the women would be concerned about an issue such as childcare.

Says who?

James Jones

Centaur wrote: »

Moreover the childcare “situation” is not just about money. Many women want to stay at home to rear their children, or at least have a work life balance that allows them to spend as much time as possible with them. Should this lifestyle choice preclude them from entering politics? Olwyn Enright resigned recently over this very issue, citing the demands of political life being incompatible with her desire to spend more time with her children. Surely to have proper representation women like Olwyn Enright should be accommodated if it is her wish to remain in politics. This can only happen if there is a political will to do it, and the political will to do it will only come if there are more women parliamentarians. Equally the whole issue of childcare in the wider society would receive more emphasis.

Olwyn Enright was married to a man in the exact same position as herself. He had the same job and the same family (obviously!) but she chose to prioritize looking after their children over her career, leaving her husband as the provider. It was a choice she made of her own free will. She was in the exact same position as a man. Why should we introduce special arrangements for anyone when they can avail of opportunities but choose not to?

As long as women insist on taking the greater amount of child caring responsibilities, their careers will suffer, regardless of their occupation.

Centaur wrote: »

Should this lifestyle choice preclude them from entering politics?

Yes because it was her own choice to make and she was aware of the consequences of that choice in the same way that I have to live with the consequences of choosing to live in a rural community while working in an urban center which leaves me with a commute by car with no real public transport alternative as well as finding it prohibitively expensive to go for a drink other than in the local due to the expense of getting a taxi.
I also know people who did not do well in life due to their choice not to work hard at school.

Tragedy

Centaur wrote: »

I don't know how you can make that assertion. International research has plenty of relevance.

How exactly? For example, the IPU report seemed to be mostly based on African, Middle Eastern and Asian examples and inputs - none of which has any relevance to Ireland.

What barriers are these pray tell. Can you point me to a report?

Can you point me to a report that details the barriers stopping women and women alone from entering politics in Ireland?
Oh right, you've already established that you can't

Are you now claiming that men don't also suffer from the problems of Cash, Childcare and Confidence? You've already refused to back up your assertion that women are discriminated against when it comes to Culture and Candidate selection, so we'll move on from there.

Look at the chart.

I did, I still can't see evidence of women being discriminated against in candidate selection. I can only see that less women are candidates.

I'm pretty sure an extensive Oireachtas report refers to Ireland

You mean the extensive Oireachtas report based on two days of comittee? You can look it up if you don't believe me, the report is based on just two days.

Also, the report is based on two things
1) The experience of three former female TD's, who it isn't unfair to believe may be slightly biased by the fact they came in to speak in favour of females being discriminated against.
2) International research on the 5 C's.

So your "extensive Oireachtas report" is based on two days of committee where a select example(probably selected by Ivana Bacik as it was her idea in the first place) were invited to talk. And I do mean select example, nowhere is there any suggestion that an unbiased opinion was sought, or a dissenting opinion.

It's also full of twisting and bias. Just one example;
On the subject of Cash being a greater impediment to female candidates

For example, women in Ireland currently earn 22% less than their male counterparts

This is a lie. Women in Ireland don't earn 22% less than their male counterparts. The report referenced states that women on average earn 22% less than men, not that women working the same job earn 22% less than men.
This is but one example of the subtle bias running through the report.

(What the report actually concludes if anyone is interested is: "The
raw gap in earnings for full time workers was estimated at 17.6 per cent. After taking account of gender based differences in worker and job characteristics, this gap fell to 6.9 per cent." Also, the report was based on 2003 figures and I'd hope we've come a bit of a way since then)

Quote:
Q: Why do women not enter politics if they have equal access - what exactly are the barriers that are discouraging them?

Lack of interest, lack of knowledge, fear, uncertainty and doubt.

A: This question was explored extensively in the 2009 Oireachtas reoprt on Women's Participation in Politics.

It wasn't explored extensively, select speakers were invited over two days.
Hate to repeat myself, but it's necessary.

The findings of the report echo international research on the subject which shows that women face similar challenges throughout the world when it comes to entering politics.

Uhh. The findings of the report FOLLOW international research on the subject. If you had bothered to actually read it, you would see that they take the 5 C's and then discuss them in turn.

I would genuinely recommend you read the report before posting about it.