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.