30% of political candidates must be female....

Pawwed Rig

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Secondly, how do you know that they were selected because of their name, or that they were selected because their family connections meant that they got involved in politics at a much earlier age, and therefore put themselves out there more?

Because many (if not most) have proved completely incapable of doing the jobs assigned to them hence the country being in such a sorry state and people being so cynical about politicians.

I don't necessarily think quotas are a good idea as I think the parties will just look for a female Lenihan/Cowen rather than her brother but anything that can shake up the selection process even slightly will be an improvement admittedly from a very low base.

maggy_thatcher

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Because many (if not most) have proved completely incapable of doing the jobs assigned to them hence the country being in such a sorry state and people being so cynical about politicians.

That's a problem with who people vote for, not who was selected. If a TD performed poorly, they should not get in on the re-election; however people are still voting them in.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I don't necessarily think quotas are a good idea as I think the parties will just look for a female Lenihan/Cowen rather than her brother but anything that can shake up the selection process even slightly will be an improvement admittedly from a very low base.

I disagree that "anything" is better than what we have already, and I disagree strongly that this is something that would be better. It's introducing discrimination into democracy, it belittles the accomplishments of all women who've gotten in before, and will hopefully backfire spectacularly. If the 32nd Dáil has 0 women in it, I'd actually be happy because it would demonstrate how discrimination is a terrible thing.

iptba

I just happened to be looking at a new ESRI report tonight and thought this was interesting:

http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/2012-12-10_WebWorkAndPovertyReportFINAL_pub.pdf

Between 2007 and 2010 there was a substantial drop in male full-time working (from 80 to 64 per cent) and a commensurate increase in male joblessness (from 16 to 28 per cent). Among females in working-age couple households, there was little change in full-time working (from 34 to 35 per cent) but a more sizeable fall in part-time working (from 28 to 22 per cent). As a result, the increase in female joblessness was not as marked as for males (from 37 to 43 per cent). Couple households where neither partner works increased (from 9 to 15 per cent). The decline in the percentage of couple households where both partners worked fulltime was more modest (from 29 to 26 per cent).

These figures seem to undermine suggestions that the gender difference in candidates or who is elected for the full-time position of being a TD are due to gender discrimination.

And they suggest the idea that 40% minima for each gender for candidates could be unfair to men.

DamoKen

iptba wrote: »

I just happened to be looking at a new ESRI report tonight and thought this was interesting:

http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/2012-12-10_WebWorkAndPovertyReportFINAL_pub.pdf


These figures seem to undermine suggestions that the gender difference in candidates or who is elected for the full-time position of being a TD are due to gender discrimination.

And they suggest the idea that 40% minima for each gender for candidates could be unfair to men.

There's no could be about it. Using the quota of 40% and the more recent figures you provided where men make up 64% and women 35% of the full time workforce statistically to be born a women will give you nearly double the chances of an equally qualified man wherever this quota system is in place. In all likelihood this will soon be enforced at a company level too as outlined in another thread. All this does is introduce a two tiered society where one sex has choices and the other is penalised to allow those choices instead of tackling the issue by providing more choices for both thereby levelling the playing field.

Perhaps with time this may encourage more women to partake in politics and full time employment. If this were to happen then the odds would decrease as is the case with men more women would now be vying for the same positions.

However without tackling the fundamental reasons for such a disparity in full time employment there will always be a smaller pool of women to draw on and worst case scenario is the removal of competition from the selection criteria, instead focusing primarily on who is the right sex, competence being a bonus.

iptba

DamoKen wrote: »

There's no could be about it. Using the quota of 40% and the more recent figures you provided where men make up 64% and women 35% of the full time workforce statistically to be born a women will give you nearly double the chances of an equally qualified man wherever this quota system is in place.

Personally I think the boom figures of 80% of men in full-time employment is the relevant figure. That is more like the percentage looking for and available for full-time work. (The equivalent figure for women was 34%).

lechiennoir

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That is just as bad an idea as quotas. How about voting for the best candidate regardless of gender, age, race etc? We need good politicians now and unfortunately we do not have too many

I'm afraid not. Any woman candidate going forward will be actively supporting a sexist quota scheme and frankly I have absolutely no intention of supporting such people. If they can support such blatant sexism at candidate level, I would dread to think of what kind of misandrist measures they would support if elected.

Besides, I'm sure the male candidates, who had to fight a lot harder to get the nomination than those in the quota scheme, will be of significantly more worth to the country as a whole and thus I'm more than happy to choose my votes from that pool.

Pawwed Rig

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

That's a problem with who people vote for, not who was selected. If a TD performed poorly, they should not get in on the re-election; however people are still voting them in.

We live in a country where people outed by tribunals as corrupt retain their seat. Where a failed Taoiseach's brother got elected after the most disastrous period in the history of the State. So Yes there is a problem with the electorate in that they seem to vote in any moron put forward just because he/she has the correct surname. That is unlikely to change under a quota system.

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

I disagree that "anything" is better than what we have already

On what basis? The country is bankrupt. In the darkest period of it's history. We have consistently elected under qualified people and allowed cronyism to blossom. Therefore Anything is better.

lechiennoir wrote: »

Any woman candidate going forward will be actively supporting a sexist quota scheme

Any woman? Really?

lechiennoir wrote: »

will be of significantly more worth to the country as a whole

Based on what evidence?
The men and women we have voted in to date have destroyed this country.

lechiennoir

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

On what basis? The country is bankrupt. In the darkest period of it's history. We have consistently elected under qualified people and allowed cronyism to blossom. Therefore Anything is better.

You may want to give this statement a little thought. You're sitting there, in your first world house, on a top of the range computer, on presumably a broadband line claiming that *anything* is better than our current situation.

Oh and as for the darkest period in the country's history, oh really? So the famine was a better time for Ireland than this little economic bump we've hit?

I'll admit, I'm going to find it incredibly hard to take you seriously if you keep spouting such hyperbolic nonsense.

Any woman? Really?

Well, those running for the first time anyway. Those up for re-election, well if they had any standards they would protest such a sexist system and refuse to run again.

Based on what evidence?

As we're talking about future candidates and a future situation, I don't believe evidence *could* exist as of yet?

The men and women we have voted in to date have destroyed this country.

The Irish people "destroyed" Ireland, not a handful of representatives in Dail Eireann. I say "destroyed" because using that term is, once again, hyperbolic nonsense.

CillianL

This is really thick. What Ireland needs is meritocracy not PC World.
It wasn't PC to say our property driven economy was a ponzi scheme in the early 2000's...doesn't mean it wasn't true so being PC about candidates by having a quota of female representative is silly. What we need in representatives are people of good character, principles and moral fibre... the race and gender of which is irrelevant.

Quotas won't fix the problem of poor governance of the state. Just because a candidate is black, Polish or female doesn't mean they can't be useless, incompetent and corrupt which is are the real problems that have destroyed the public's confidence in the political system

Pawwed Rig

lechiennoir wrote: »

You may want to give this statement a little thought. You're sitting there, in your first world house, on a top of the range computer, on presumably a broadband line claiming that *anything* is better than our current situation.

Yes anything. We are talking about the nomination of candidates for elections. Any system of nomination would be better than the current one which is based on cronyism and destroyed this country. Now twisting my words to claim I said 'anything is better than our current situation' is disingenuous.

lechiennoir wrote: »

Oh and as for the darkest period in the country's history, oh really? So the famine was a better time for Ireland than this little economic bump we've hit?

This country as in the Republic of Ireland. Twist again

lechiennoir wrote: »

I'll admit, I'm going to find it incredibly hard to take you seriously if you keep spouting such hyperbolic nonsense.

Be nice

lechiennoir wrote: »

Well, those running for the first time anyway. Those up for re-election, well if they had any standards they would protest such a sexist system and refuse to run again.

Is it just the women politicians voting this through or will you be judging the male politicians by the same standards and refusing to vote for any of them that back it?

Evidence based on past experiences is adequate

lechiennoir wrote: »

The Irish people "destroyed" Ireland, not a handful of representatives in Dail Eireann..

Agreed but the handful of representatives should have done better.

iptba

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Yes anything. We are talking about the nomination of candidates for elections. Any system of nomination would be better than the current one which is based on cronyism and destroyed this country. Now twisting my words to claim I said 'anything is better than our current situation' is disingenuous.

Who said there won't be cronyism now. I remember looking at it and a higher percentage of female TDs (can't remember was it this Dail or the last one) were part of a family dynasty you dislike.

With gender quotas/targets for state/semi-state boards, quite a lot of the women from what I could see* were chosen from a relatively small pool with connections to FF.

*I think this was in the FF period when I looked in to it

Pawwed Rig

iptba wrote: »

Who said there won't be cronyism now. I remember looking at it and a higher percentage of female TDs (can't remember was it this Dail or the last one) were part of a family dynasty you dislike.

With gender quotas/targets for state/semi-state boards, quite a lot of the women from what I could see* were chosen from a relatively small pool with connections to FF.

*I think this was in the FF period when I looked in to it

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I don't necessarily think quotas are a good idea as I think the parties will just look for a female Lenihan/Cowen rather than her brother

As I said I don't necessarily think quotas are a good idea as such but we desperately need smarter people to represent this country. Whatever way that can be done would be preferable to the current system.
The other poster claimed he was going to vote against all women candidates from now on because of the quota system. My argument is that we should vote for the best person for the job regardless of whether it is a man or a woman. If we all did that, a quota is irrelevant as, which has been discussed earlier in the thread, just because 40% of the candidates are women does not mean 40% of the TD's are women.

iptba

Pawwed Rig wrote:

I don't necessarily think quotas are a good idea as I think the parties will just look for a female Lenihan/Cowen rather than her brother

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

As I said

Sorry, I missed that.
I don't necessarily think quotas are a good idea as such but we desperately need smarter people to represent this country. Whatever way that can be done would be preferable to the current system.
The other poster claimed he was going to vote against all women candidates from now on because of the quota system. My argument is that we should vote for the best person for the job regardless of whether it is a man or a woman.[/quote]
I can see both sides of it. If people feel something is unfair, there can be a protest vote against something, if they don't see another way to express their displeasure about it.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

If we all did that, a quota is irrelevant as, which has been discussed earlier in the thread, just because 40% of the candidates are women does not mean 40% of the TD's are women.

However, it's not always that easy. For example, some parties only have one candidate. Also, many voters will often vote by policy/party so if a particular party puts forward candidates, they'll likely all get a lot of support from the same people. So I don't think a quota is irrelevant.

Reku

iptba wrote: »

Sorry, I missed that.
I don't necessarily think quotas are a good idea as such but we desperately need smarter people to represent this country. Whatever way that can be done would be preferable to the current system.

:eek:
We need an IQ quota!:D

I'd give it five minutes before the feminists start protesting that IQ is a discriminatory scale and unfair on women.

lechiennoir

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

As I said I don't necessarily think quotas are a good idea as such but we desperately need smarter people to represent this country. Whatever way that can be done would be preferable to the current system.
The other poster claimed he was going to vote against all women candidates from now on because of the quota system. My argument is that we should vote for the best person for the job regardless of whether it is a man or a woman. If we all did that, a quota is irrelevant as, which has been discussed earlier in the thread, just because 40% of the candidates are women does not mean 40% of the TD's are women.

If we had a system that supported the best person for the job then I could vote in that manner, however we now have one where 40% of the candidates will be running because they merely don't have a penis. That isn't acceptable and it's not something I will be supporting. In fact, since these people are being so groomed for candidacy, I won't even acknowledge them nor even look into whether they have merit because they are supporters of, and benefactors of, a sexist system that, lets face it, has been brought in purely to gain more support for the larger political parties.

For the 2011 General Election, there were 83 female candidates of which a mere 24 were elected. What happens when they run the quota of 40% female candidates and a low amount of them are elected then? Do we have more misandrist policies forced on us in order to wedge more females into the Dail, purely for the sake of doing so?

If the country wanted more female candidates and the issue was with parties not running them, more than 28% of them would have been voted for last time.

So when going to vote next time, I'll look at the 60% who are nominated not because they have a penis, but because they fought to get that nomination, and make my choices based on their merit.

Hell, in Dun Laoghaire, coming up to the 2011 General Election the Fine Gael local branch, through a democratic vote, nominated 2 men to run for the area. Fine Gael overruled them, removed a very good candidate and replaced them with Mary Mitchell-O'Connor. Had it been the other way around there would be absolute war.

A misandrist model taken from misandrist socialist societies in Europe in a union hell bent on shoving misandrist policies into each country, and people wonder why the US and Asia look on and laugh.

iptba

lechiennoir wrote: »

Hell, in Dun Laoghaire, coming up to the 2011 General Election the Fine Gael local branch, through a democratic vote, nominated 2 men to run for the area. Fine Gael overruled them, removed a very good candidate and replaced them with Mary Mitchell-O'Connor. Had it been the other way around there would be absolute war.

A misandrist model taken from misandrist socialist societies in Europe in a union hell bent on shoving misandrist policies into each country, and people wonder why the US and Asia look on and laugh.

It does make me wonder whether misandry could be what partly motivates some people to push for some quotas, just as if somebody said there are too many (of some other group) on something/getting elected/similar, I'd wonder about their views about that group.

I find it annoying when people like Sen. Bacik claims it is because gender balance is so important. I have seen no evidence she sees this is an issue when it is mostly or all women on a committee or board. For example, the steering committee of the Center for Gender and Women's Studies in TCD is all-female and she's on it. She set up a meeting only for female members of the Oireachtas to discuss women prisoners. I imagine quite a lot of people most passionate for gender quotas wouldn't make a fuss if there were few women on something i.e. looking for gender balance per se isn't necessarily what is driving them.

lechiennoir

Gender balance is only an issue when there are more men than women in an area that is financially desirable. You don't see Bacik, Ireland's least wanted politician, concerned about the massive lack of men in childcare, primary education etc. or the lack of women in refuse disposal, street maintenance etc.

Feathers

DamoKen wrote: »

There's no could be about it. Using the quota of 40% and the more recent figures you provided where men make up 64% and women 35% of the full time workforce statistically to be born a women will give you nearly double the chances of an equally qualified man wherever this quota system is in place.

I'm as against the quotas as anyone, but to be fair, people standing for election aren't working in politics (until they get elected); so these stats don't really apply directly. For instance, the women they find to stand could be unemployed. Also, even if not, if the current ratio of full-time workers is 65:35 & within politics, this would give them a ratio of 60:40 to be eligible to stand, it's not doubling there chances of being on the ballet?

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Yes anything. We are talking about the nomination of candidates for elections. Any system of nomination would be better than the current one which is based on cronyism and destroyed this country.

Change for change's sake is a dangerous idea & one that has come up with a lot of half-baked ideas in the past. The attitude that we must do something & that it's better to act now & make any change rather than to think through the implications isn't the way to run the country.

There are plenty of ideas that would be a retrograde step in trying to introduce change into politics (such as this one, in letting those in power manipulate the ballot paper to their own ends). I agree that we need a political system more open to change & change that can progress through quickly, once decided. But this initial decision should come off the back of extensive, honest publich debate — this is what is mostly lacking in our system & without which, you're not going to get substantial reform, just these token gestures to appease people with. But sure, so long as they're doing something, right?

iptba

Feathers wrote: »

I'm as against the quotas as anyone, but to be fair, people standing for election aren't working in politics (until they get elected); so these stats don't really apply directly. For instance, the women they find to stand could be unemployed. Also, even if not, if the current ratio of full-time workers is 65:35 & within politics, this would give them a ratio of 60:40 to be eligible to stand, it's not doubling there chances of being on the ballet?

When unemployment wasn't much of a problem (2007), 80% of men were in full-time employment versus 34% of women. 65% is an artificially lower figure for men due to a lack of full-time positions.

As there was (virtually) full employment, if you weren't in full employment then, the chances are you weren't looking to have a full-time job in which case you most likely wouldn't be interested in the specific (and quite demanding) full-time job of being a politician.

maggy_thatcher

Feathers wrote: »

I'm as against the quotas as anyone, but to be fair, people standing for election aren't working in politics (until they get elected);

Not necessarily. There is more to "working in politics" than just being elected to a public position. There are a lot of other members of political parties who are actively involved that would certainly also count

Feathers wrote: »

it's not doubling there chances of being on the ballet?

Chuckling at the idea of Gerry Adams in a Tutu

iptba

iptba wrote: »

It does make me wonder whether misandry could be what partly motivates some people to push for some quotas, just as if somebody said there are too many (of some other group) on something/getting elected/similar, I'd wonder about their views about that group.

I find it annoying when people like Sen. Bacik claims it is because gender balance is so important. I have seen no evidence she sees this is an issue when it is mostly or all women on a committee or board. For example, the steering committee of the Center for Gender and Women's Studies in TCD is all-female and she's on it. She set up a meeting only for female members of the Oireachtas to discuss women prisoners. I imagine quite a lot of people most passionate for gender quotas wouldn't make a fuss if there were few womenmen on something i.e. looking for gender balance per se isn't necessarily what is driving them.

(It won't let me edit this message to fix the typo now)

The Corinthian

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Not necessarily. There is more to "working in politics" than just being elected to a public position. There are a lot of other members of political parties who are actively involved that would certainly also count

Indeed, however the proposed law specifically targets how political parties choose candidates to appear on the party ticket in constituency elections.

In this regard, I'm not sure that gender discrimination is actually seen as a problem - were we to look at discrimination in this area, we'd probably conclude that it is more often than not one based on nepotism and cronyism than gender and even proponents of this law stress that it is designed to encourage women to run for office rather than counteract any alleged discrimination.

I've known a good few politicians and would-be politicians in my life. Many spend years clawing themselves up the ladder at a local level, continuously involved in factional politics, so as to get onto a ticket. Aligning yourself to more senior party members is also important, as their influence can make or break your chances, resulting in being blocked indefinitely or parachuted in regardless of time served.

I don't think such quotas are going to encourage women to enter politics, because they sill have to get involved in a political party the first place and these quotas don't address this at all.

I do think however it will benefit women already in politics who wish to have an advantage where it comes to the selection process. Politicians like Ivana Bacik, who unsurprisingly supports such quotas, having been repeatedly parachuted onto tickets despite limited to negligible local involvement in the constituencies she's been run, unsuccessfully, in.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

I find it annoying when people like Sen. Bacik claims it is because gender balance is so important. I have seen no evidence she sees this is an issue when it is mostly or all women on a committee or board. For example, the steering committee of the Center for Gender and Women's Studies in TCD is all-female and she's on it. She set up a meeting only for female members of the Oireachtas to discuss women prisoners. I imagine quite a lot of people most passionate for gender quotas wouldn't make a fuss if there were few women on something i.e. looking for gender balance per se isn't necessarily what is driving them.

I agree it is appalling - and the reason is that there is literally NO ONE telling them that Men matter.

Like the Minister, all departments, all charities, all funders, all clubs ... etc etc etc ... every day, every week, every month they are lobbied by women's groups and feminist groups telling them how awful life is for women and how much help they need and how unfair things are ......... but NO ONE ever contacts them about Men.

It is hardly surprising that we Men are getting screwed by the system.

The Corinthian

Piliger wrote: »

Like the Minister, all departments, all charities, all funders, all clubs ... etc etc etc ... every day, every week, every month they are lobbied by women's groups and feminist groups telling them how awful life is for women and how much help they need and how unfair things are ......... but NO ONE ever contacts them about Men.

That's probably because Feminist groups are better organized and professional. Men's groups are still amateurish kitchen committees and guys like us whinging on the Interweb...

Piliger

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's probably because Feminist groups are better organized and professional. Men's groups are still amateurish kitchen committees and guys like us whinging on the Interweb...

There ARE no men's groups. This is being discussed in a few other threads hereabouts.
Unfortunately Men in general just don't really grasp what is going on around us. They are too focussed on their own lives and if they are not affected directly then they have no interest. This is despite the appalling things happening in family court, the the pedophile stamp on every man's forehead and the misandrous outpourings on the TV and in the media.
We desperately need some kind of Men's organisation but the interest just doesn't seem to be there.

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

They are too focussed on their own lives and if they are not affected directly then they have no interest. This is despite the appalling things happening in family court, the the pedophile stamp on every man's forehead and the misandrous outpourings on the TV and in the media.
We desperately need some kind of Men's organisation but the interest just doesn't seem to be there.

And of course things can be interpreted in different ways i.e. they could be "directly affected" by things but not interpret it that way/see a commonality with other men/problems in the system/society.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

And of course things can be interpreted in different ways i.e. they could be "directly affected" by things but not interpret it that way/see a commonality with other men/problems in the system/society.

Yes. Men are also victims of this bias without even knowing it. We are bombarded with images and stories telling us how awful men are and how awful the plight of women in every possible sphere of life are. I believe that we have a situation where men are actually being brain washed to believe this stuff - and hence they feel no need for any kind of Men's Organisation.

Look at the report on RTE News this evening, about discrimination in Ireland. After they dealt with the real problems being experienced by Black people and Europeans in Ireland ... then then started to talk about Old people, the disabled, and of course Women ... but naturally one group was COMPLETELY OMITTED ..... Nothing said about Men.

maggy_thatcher

lechiennoir wrote: »

Hell, in Dun Laoghaire, coming up to the 2011 General Election the Fine Gael local branch, through a democratic vote, nominated 2 men to run for the area. Fine Gael overruled them, removed a very good candidate and replaced them with Mary Mitchell-O'Connor. Had it been the other way around there would be absolute war.

Do you have any citations of this? I gave MMOC my no. 1 preference last time around, and had I known about this, I'd have put her right next to Senator Bacik at the bottom of the pack, as I don't like democratic practices being subverted this way.