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

deirdre_dub

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

You seem to be under the impression that a male politician cannot probably represent female constituents....or that women constituents would automatically vote for a female candidate as they would be better represented.

People will (should!) always vote for the best candidate, regardless of gender. I certainly do.

But the fact remains that women have a slightly different life experience than men, and both sets of life experiences need to be represented, as far as is practicable. That is only going to have a chance of happening when the number of candidates is split reasonably even. And that is only going to happen when political parties are given incentive to give their female members the experience and political education they require to make good candidates.

Basically i am pointing out that in many cases female voters are voting for male candidates.

Of course! When 86% of the candidates are male, then of course 50% of the electorate are going to vote for them!

The_Conductor

CDfm wrote: »

Reading thru this and similar threads it is apparent that men dont feel represented by "male" politicians.

Has it happened in other countries that this type of quota system has generated debate by men on the quality of legislation affecting us.

To be honest with you, its not that men don't feel represented by 'male' politicians, its more the case that the public at large don't feel represented by Irish politicians. The perception is that one politician is as bad as another. Why else did Ming and Mick Wallace get in? It's an electorate who have been betrayed by a system that is supposed to serve us. Hell, even Enda Kenny believes he has a mandate granted by the Irish people! Bollox if ever I heard it............

Eric Cartman

This is the most utterly stupid thing the goverment or any goverment has ever suggested. This is not equality, you cant have people being equal by giving one side a massive helping hand. All this will end up with is all the political parties bringing on a whole bunch of unsuitable women to try make up the numbers. There is nothing to stop women being involved at the moment, they do not need a helping hand from anyone , if they want to be in politics they should have to work for it like everyone does at the moment

iptba

Lots of professions don't have even/similar gender breakdowns - there are not infrequently big excesses of one or another. This isn't necessarily down to discrimination - it can be down to different interests and the like, for example.

One could make a case that it would be better for society if there was a better gender balance amongst primary teachers but no 30% quota or the like has been introduced.

The_Conductor

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This is the most utterly stupid thing the goverment or any goverment has ever suggested. This is not equality, you cant have people being equal by giving one side a massive helping hand. All this will end up with is all the political parties bringing on a whole bunch of unsuitable women to try make up the numbers. There is nothing to stop women being involved at the moment, they do not need a helping hand from anyone , if they want to be in politics they should have to work for it like everyone does at the moment

The way its normally done is 30% quota reserved for both sexes- which means while its targeted at women, legally they get away with it. Have a look at the legislation governing appointments to stateboards- that's how they'll proceed, I'm sure of it.

exe.pat

"Women currently represent about 60 percent of university students in Sweden, a pioneer in gender equality.

The proposed change comes following criticism that men received priority admission to programmes where their gender was underrepresented and where there were a higher number of applicants with top marks than available spots, such as programmes in veterinary medicine, dentistry, medicine, and psychology."

http://www.thelocal.se/24330/20100112/#

The people behind quotas use the term "equality" in an Orwellian way, in reality it means at least equal, preferably more equal.


Actually, what these feminists are doing is institutionalizing discrimination, if a 30% female quota is fair, then its also fair to have 30% handicapped, 30% brown haired, 30% blond haired, 30% red haired, 30% dyslexic, 30% black, 30% asian etc. is fair too,yes?

MusicTech2010

This is all a bit too right wing for me! If you wan't to run for the Dail, run. If you don't want to run, don't. The freedom to do so is key in any healthy democracy

The_Conductor

exe.pat wrote: »

Actually, what these feminists are doing is institutionalizing discrimination, if a 30% female quota is fair, then its also fair to have 30% handicapped, 30% brown haired, 30% blond haired, 30% red haired, 30% dyslexic, 30% black, 30% asian etc. is fair too,yes?

Not exactly- the 30% could be black/red/brown/blond/dyslexic etc- just as long as they are female.....

The way Irish legislation has been phrased in the past- is 'reserving (for arguments sake) 30% of nominations for both sexes'- aka- you can have up to 70% of nominations for any one sex........ This has suited feminists nicely- other than when as recipients of state funding, organisations that represent solely the interests of women, have found they are obliged to have a number of male nominees to their boards etc (at which point in time- their previous electoral patterns went out the window- and they had a wide field of nominees- from which on very very rare occasions a male was chosen as a token gesture.

The comment about Orwell is very very apt- from Animal Farm I believe, 'All animals are equal, however some animals are more equal than others.........'

The_Conductor

iptba wrote: »

Lots of professions don't have even/similar gender breakdowns - there are not infrequently big excesses of one or another. This isn't necessarily down to discrimination - it can be down to different interests and the like, for example.

One could make a case that it would be better for society if there was a better gender balance amongst primary teachers but no 30% quota or the like has been introduced.

Of course not- there would be war. Similarly- akin to the token male primary school teachers- you have the token male nurses etc. In teaching and nursing- these males tend to gravitate in certain directions (e.g. in nursing there is a significantly higher number of Intensive care/Critical Care/OR and ER male nurses than there are in general nursing- and in teaching- these individuals tend to consistently take on extra duties- which in practice means they get appointed to positions of authority over time- and are either held up as an example of how women support equal opportunities- or how the old boys network has managed to permeate even these 'female' professions. Remember the fuss when Liam Doran was elected to lead the IMNO? And would he be a general nurse? Errr no- from memory he has multiple qualifications and is a general nurse, an intellectually disabled nurse, has his BA in nursing and an additional Masters in Personnel Management.......

James Brown may have sung that 'its a mans world'........ perhaps he hasn't been out and about in Ireland lately- its almost de rigeur for men to have to apologise for even existing.........

deirdre_dub

smccarrick wrote: »

its almost de rigeur for men to have to apologise for even existing.........

That is, of course, not good, and counter-productive.

We have all inherited a messed-up system. Finger-pointing and blaming isn't going to fix it. For what it's worth, I think men are, on the whole, awesome. On the whole, you do so very much really good work in society, and most certainly should not apologise for existing.

common sense brigade

Total Bullshit tbh


The best people should be selected, regardless of whats between their legs.

100% Agree and Im a woman. No woman should get a job over a man based on a gender quota, if he is the better candidate. And Vice Versa. Makes me sick. PC Ireland gone mad again.

deirdre_dub

common sense brigade wrote: »

100% Agree and Im a woman. No woman should get a job over a man based on a gender quota, if he is the better candidate.

I think the fear is that some of the best potential politicians aren't even getting to the stage of being selected as candidates because of who and/or what they are. As someone else said, teachers and lawyers have a much better chance than the rest of us, and that is very clearly wrong on every conceivable level.

And no-one is suggesting that a woman get a job over a better man. This suggestion is about giving women a chance of getting a job, a chance of presenting herself as a potentially good politician. The politicians will still be elected from the candidates in the normal way.

exe.pat

smccarrick wrote: »

Not exactly- the 30% could be black/red/brown/blond/dyslexic etc- just as long as they are female.....

The way Irish legislation has been phrased in the past- is 'reserving (for arguments sake) 30% of nominations for both sexes'- aka- you can have up to 70% of nominations for any one sex........ This has suited feminists nicely- other than when as recipients of state funding, organisations that represent solely the interests of women, have found they are obliged to have a number of male nominees to their boards etc (at which point in time- their previous electoral patterns went out the window- and they had a wide field of nominees- from which on very very rare occasions a male was chosen as a token gesture.

The comment about Orwell is very very apt- from Animal Farm I believe, 'All animals are equal, however some animals are more equal than others.........'

Re. the more equal.

In the UK, feminists - have been campaigning for the closure of women prisons [1] and they have suggested the female prisons be turned into prisons for men [2] As they are moving closer to that goal, UK judges have recently been ordered to be more lenient on female criminals and the justifications that have been used could apply to many male prisoners and not all female prisoners - being non violent, having mental health issues and family responsibilities.[3] There is a documentary that has been banned by feminists in Sweden called Gender War, in it influential feminists assert men are animals, at political gatherings they sing songs about mutilating and castrating men and the female journalist catches a feminist politician in a lie and is marched off the premises told that of she needs help from domestic violence services she will be refused, because she "crossed" them.[4]

[1] http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=496
[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-442113/Womens-prisons-close-decade.html
[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7995844/Judges-told-be-more-lenient-to-women-criminals.html
[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yta55u2zP2U

We should be looking at what this movement actually does instead of what it and its naive followers claim, and what the dictionary says about it. They need to be kept out of power, not given mandatory positions.

Maguined

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I think the fear is that some of the best potential politicians aren't even getting to the stage of being selected as candidates because of who and/or what they are. As someone else said, teachers and lawyers have a much better chance than the rest of us, and that is very clearly wrong on every conceivable level.

And no-one is suggesting that a woman get a job over a better man. This suggestion is about giving women a chance of getting a job, a chance of presenting herself as a potentially good politician. The politicians will still be elected from the candidates in the normal way.

That is the party system though, you join the party that you agree with and follow their policies, if you do not agree with their policies then why join the party in the first place? If a woman thinks a party will not put her forward because of he gender then why is she joining that party? why not join a different party or run as an independent? If I was a politician and felt strongly about green issue I do not apply to join Labour and complain that Labour is mostly about socialism and demand that they change their party politics to be more focused on green issues, it makes more sense that I join the Green party.

So as a party in an individual circumstance they are being forced to choose who they put forward not based upon who they think is the correct candidate but who has certain genitalia. It is simply sexist.

Morlar

This sounds like a labour party pre-condition for coalition. This is a disgrace. Ivana bacik was yet again rejected at the last general election. This is anti-democratic.

If a woman candidate is incapable of putting in the hours required, or of even being fairly selected by her party on merit then she is not worth anything to me as a political representative and I will refuse to vote for her on principle.

Annasopra

I have to say I strongly support the idea of gender quotas. I view politics as being the structuring of opportunities for some and exclusion for others rather than as being the effort of individuals. I see this as a start democratising politics by removing some of the barriers and exclusionary practices that women face.

Maguined

Johnnymcg wrote: »

I have to say I strongly support the idea of gender quotas. I view politics as being the structuring of opportunities for some and exclusion for others rather than as being the effort of individuals. I see this as a start democratising politics by removing some of the barriers and exclusionary practices that women face.

How is this removing barriers? The most suitable candidate is not being put forward by the party, the most suitable gender is, so they are being chosen based on their gender which is the very definition of sexism.

Annasopra

Maguined wrote: »

How is this removing barriers? The most suitable candidate is not being put forward by the party, the most suitable gender is, so they are being chosen based on their gender which is the very definition of sexism.

That's complete rubbish - selection conventions in parties don't choose the most suitable candidate - they choose the one with the most connections, friends, the one who can pay for the most members to vote at a convention, the one that is favoured by head office or the outgoing TD or the sitting TD if he/she wants a particularly weak running mate or their geographical base. They are rarely if ever decided based on merit. Many more suitable candidates or possible candidates get completely overlooked by all of those processes. This is about removing some of the barriers faced by women within all of that.

Maguined

Johnnymcg wrote: »

That's complete rubbish - selection conventions in parties don't choose the most suitable candidate - they choose the one with the most connections, friends, the one who can pay for the most members to vote at a convention, the one that is favoured by head office or the outgoing TD or the sitting TD if he/she wants a particularly weak running mate or their geographical base. They are rarely if ever decided based on merit. Many more suitable candidates or possible candidates get completely overlooked by all of those processes. This is about removing some of the barriers faced by women within all of that.

That is the most suitable candidate for a party. Not who has the most liberal or radical ideas to change society. the most suitable candidate for a party is the candidate they feel has the highest chance of getting elected, not who has the most honourable intentions.

If you want to be chosen based purely on merit than run as an independent. Joining a party and then complaining about how that party selects it's candidates is idiotic, political parties are not employers, you do not have a human right to be liked by them and demand that they favour you over anyone else, I cannot join a sports team and demand to be the first pick regardless of capabilities of the other team mates.

Pepe LeFrits

Johnnymcg wrote: »

That's complete rubbish - selection conventions in parties don't choose the most suitable candidate - they choose the one with the most connections, friends, the one who can pay for the most members to vote at a convention, the one that is favoured by head office or the outgoing TD or the sitting TD if he/she wants a particularly weak running mate or their geographical base. They are rarely if ever decided based on merit. Many more suitable candidates or possible candidates get completely overlooked by all of those processes. This is about removing some of the barriers faced by women within all of that.

Well put.

I don't agree with gender quotas in principal, but I think this may do some good. Quotas may not be fair or work well in theory, but the reality is that our politics are not utopian. The cream doesn't always rise within a restrictive party system that rather resembles an old boys' club. This 86% male figure indicates that we certainly aren't getting the best politicians that we can.

I do have concerns that the quota may undermine women who are elected - though on the other hand it may bring us capable new politicans who would not otherwise get the opportunity to run. Better to have some elected women be undermined than not have them elected in the first place.

common sense brigade

This suggestion is about giving women a chance of getting a job, a chance of presenting herself as a potentially good politician

This is 2011, women have every chance of getting into politics and getting decent jobs if they are driven enough. I am a career woman and have never encountered a time when I couldnt get a job, I have also been promoted over men where I work.

Maguined

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Well put.

I don't agree with gender quotas in principal, but I think this may do some good. Quotas may not be fair or work well in theory, but the reality is that our politics are not utopian. The cream doesn't always rise within a restrictive party system that rather resembles an old boys' club. This 86% male figure indicates that we certainly aren't getting the best politicians that we can.

I do have concerns that the quota may undermine women who are elected - though on the other hand it may bring us capable new politicans who would not otherwise get the opportunity to run. Better to have some elected women be undermined than not have them elected in the first place.

Does this quota reform the party system? does it stop it being an "old boys club"? not in the slightest, all it does is replace it with an "old boys & girls" club where it is still the elitist connections that determines your prospects. It is not going to force selections based on merit in the slightest, just form some based on genitals.

28064212

Johnnymcg wrote: »

• they choose the one with the most connections, friends,
• the one who can pay for the most members to vote at a convention
• the one that is favoured by head office or the outgoing TD or the sitting TD if he/she wants a particularly weak running mate or their geographical base
• They are rarely if ever decided based on merit.

And all of those are nothing to do with gender. They favour women with connections more than men with no connections. So if a female quota is brought in, a man who doesn't have connections has one more disadvantage to face up to, and a woman with connections has an extra advantage.

One of the reasons women are under-respresented at corporate level is because a majority of women do a majority of the child-rearing. The way to solve that problem is not to implement incentives for women, it's to implement incentives for parents

Joey the lips

This is crazy. Its not about the right person for the job it is just looking for women. What of areas where women canidates are low on the ground?

If you ask me this is no different than picking your best friend.

iptba

exe.pat wrote: »

Re. the more equal.

In the UK, feminists - have been campaigning for the closure of women prisons [1] and they have suggested the female prisons be turned into prisons for men [2] As they are moving closer to that goal, UK judges have recently been ordered to be more lenient on female criminals and the justifications that have been used could apply to many male prisoners and not all female prisoners - being non violent, having mental health issues and family responsibilities.[3] There is a documentary that has been banned by feminists in Sweden called Gender War, in it influential feminists assert men are animals, at political gatherings they sing songs about mutilating and castrating men and the female journalist catches a feminist politician in a lie and is marched off the premises told that of she needs help from domestic violence services she will be refused, because she "crossed" them.[4]

[1] http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=496
[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-442113/Womens-prisons-close-decade.html
[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7995844/Judges-told-be-more-lenient-to-women-criminals.html
[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yta55u2zP2U

We should be looking at what this movement actually does instead of what it and its naive followers claim, and what the dictionary says about it. They need to be kept out of power, not given mandatory positions.

We had Ivana Bacik organising an all-women meeting of members of the Oireachtas with Baroness Corston on the first issue you raise (female prisoners):

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0189/S.0189.200805200002.html

Senator Ivana Bacik: This week, we are fortunate to receive a visit from Baroness Jean Corston from the British House of L[817]ords who produced a very radical report last year on women in prison and who recommended, after a very thorough review, that prison places for women should essentially be abolished and that there should just be a small number of small detention units for women. Otherwise, alternative sanctions should be used. We could very much learn from the lessons of that report.

I am happy to say that Baroness Corston will be visiting Leinster House on Thursday. Deputy Mary O’Rourke and I are hosting a meeting with her for all women Members of the Oireachtas. I am sorry that we cannot invite any male colleagues interested in this issue to the briefing with Baroness Corston.


Senator David Norris: Why not?


Senator Ivana Bacik: I would be happy to meet them to discuss the issues at another time.
The Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice will also host a seminar on Thursday evening on the future of women’s imprisonment. This is an issue which we could very usefully debate in this House and could lead the way in calling for a critical review of women’s imprisonment, as Baroness Corston has done in Great Britain.

This brings up a few issues including:
- Now saying that no longer should men and women be treated the same - when it suits there should be different treatment with special treatment for women

- The apparent hypocrisy of a need for gender balance - it's ok to have all women meetings.

One sees that also in Centre for Gender and Women's Studies in TCD
http://www.tcd.ie/cgws/ where one would think the need for gender balance would be very important. It has an all-women advisory committee involving non-other than Ivana Bacik http://www.tcd.ie/cgws/staff/advisorycommitte.php . When there are no men or low numbers of men, suddenly having gender balance is less important.

Pepe LeFrits

Maguined wrote: »

Does this quota reform the party system? does it stop it being an "old boys club"? not in the slightest, all it does is replace it with an "old boys & girls" club where it is still the elitist connections that determines your prospects. It is not going to force selections based on merit in the slightest, just form some based on genitals.

Perhaps not, but it'd be a step in the right direction.

Maguined

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Perhaps not, but it'd be a step in the right direction.

How? If it is not a step in the direction of candidates being selected based upon individual merit, and instead it is a step towards sexism being condoned and even mandated by law why is this a step in the right direction.

At best I see this as a step to the side but more likely I see this as a step backwards for equality.

deirdre_dub

common sense brigade wrote: »

This is 2011, women have every chance of getting into politics and getting decent jobs if they are driven enough.

Completely agree.

However, there are things that makes politics unique, namely that politics is the business of representing the people in government. There is something quite fundamentally wrong with that business when it is top-heavy with people who are not representative of the people they supposedly represent. It is top-heavy with middle-aged men, top-heavy with teachers and lawyers, top-heavy with people who are out of touch with many (if not most) of the people they supposedly represent.

There is a viscious circle at work - people don't feel represented by their government. Many feel that there isn't much point in going for election, because they would be very much the odd-one-out in that monolithic system, and hence believe (probably quite correctly) that the monolithic system would drown out their contribution. And the monolithic system isn't interested in changing itself, because the current system serves those who are in power in that system.

Maguined

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Completely agree.

However, there are things that makes politics unique, namely that politics is the business of representing the people in government. There is something quite fundamentally wrong with that business when it is top-heavy with people who are not representative of the people they supposedly represent. It is top-heavy with middle-aged men, top-heavy with teachers and lawyers, top-heavy with people who are out of touch with many (if not most) of the people they supposedly represent.

There is a viscious circle at work - people don't feel represented by their government. Many feel that there isn't much point in going for election, because they would be very much the odd-one-out in that monolithic system, and hence believe (probably quite correctly) that the monolithic system would drown out their contribution. And the monolithic system isn't interested in changing itself, because the current system serves those who are in power in that system.

Will people feel their politicians do represent them just because of the gender? and if so does the fact this politician may not have been the preferred choice of their party for that seat?

Can women only be represented by women?

deirdre_dub

Quick question for the men here.

Have you ever noticed that, even though more people die from testicular cancer than breast cancer, the latter is the one that gets all the attention? Have you ever noticed that, for all the (righteous) complaints made by feminism about many aspects of women in society, and in spite of the fact that most of our rulers are male, women still really aren't doing too bad in society overall, and there are ways (eg suicide, homelessness) where men are doing really badly? How does that work?!

May I suggest is that these things aren't in spite of the fact that most of the rulers are male, but are instead because of the fact that most of the rulers are male. The way I believe it works is quite simple - most men love women. Most men love women in a way that they don't love other men. When certain issues (notably healthcare and certain social issues) are brought to a table of men, those men are going to have their sense of love for women triggered by those issues, and are going to act.

Guess what? In spite of the impressions certain factions of feminism may have given you, most women love men. It is actually my fervent hope that a more gender-equal government would benefit men more than women. And I say that, in part, as someone who lost my youngest brother - someone I loved very much - to suicide. I also say it as someone who believes that men are, in general, awesome, and, in general, under-appreciated in society in some important ways. It is my hope that more women in government would redress that.

Also, in general, whereas men's socialisaiton tends towards being competitive, women's socialisation tends towards being co-operative. And I believe a government with more people in it whose socialisation has tended towards the co-operative would be a better government for everyone. Which isn't to say that the competitive isn't also very important!

I certainly don't think that a gender-unequal government in the other direction would be a better one. We need both - we need all voices. That is the foundation of the ideals of democracy.