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

exe.pat

iptba wrote: »

There were a very large gap between my Labour candidates in the European elections with Ivana Bacik if I recall correctly being the second last candidate (I voted all the way down). I don't think the woman should be trusted by men - just as we saw with the women-only meeting of the members of the Oireachtas (while at the same time she has no problem calling for the need for gender balance); and the issue showed a lack of balance also - with the call that prison wasn't a suitable place for women.

Whats particularly vile about saying that prison isn't a suitable place for women is the implication that it is a suitable place for men. And in this country, its well known that womens prisons are considerably more comfortable than mens and that mountjoy is in breach of human rights.

We need to start listening to what women like Bacik are actually saying.

As well as that, with her type, comes a whole basket of other problems..

Misinformation and fearmingering on trafficking, domestic violence and rape, discriminatory victim support, protection of female abusers, disproportionate healthcare spending for women, more quotas in other areas, hostility to fathers rights, draconian male targeted laws... etc.

And if we went down that road, the "we only want equality" feminists would likely stay quiet about it and work to silence our dissent, like it goes down in other countries with the same problems.

iptba

smccarrick wrote: »

If the punishment is that state funding to political parties will be cut- it beggars the question- how much state funding do they get- and why am I as a taxpayer- funding political parties whose ideologies I vehemently disagree with (and whose members I consider to be incompetent at best......)

Politics in Ireland is rotten to the core.......

They get quite a lot:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0528/1224297952047.html

In 2009, Senator Ivana Bacik produced a report recommending parties should face financial penalties unless a third of their general election candidates were women.

Exchequer funding for 2010 was more than €13,480,000. Fianna Fáil received €5,200,780; Fine Gael €4,484,378; Labour €2,163,293; the Greens €801,999 and Sinn Féin €830,298.

Take away virtually no corporate donations with the changes and that the amount individuals can give will go down, and the amount they get from other sources is going down. So I imagine a party would find it very difficult if they lost half but other parties didn't.

pajunior

I think all parties should lose all funding straight away. It keeps barriers up to new/smaller parties. Helps the powerful stay powerful.

As for the 30% thing, well I think anyone can agree that it is an unbelievable insult to women and politics in general.
This is what happens when Irish politicians try to seem progressive and liberal.

iptba

Long (and good, IMO) anti-quota letter in Irish Examiner

http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/letters/dail-quota-would-fuel-war-of-the-sexes-157089.html

"This is a measure that makes war between the sexes a fixed and permanent part of our democracy rather than a relic of the past.


[..]

A measure that betrays the faith people like me put in egalitarian ideas and makes me ask "Should I gang together with other men just to protect my interests?"

I think men should. This is not exactly the only move where men have been disadvantaged (or remained disadvantaged when men appeared to be losing out, while apparent disadvantages affecting women were changed).

And after this, quotas on company boards is increasingly likely.

Pepe LeFrits

iptba wrote: »

Gender quota to rise to 40% after 7 years!!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0531/breaking32.html

So much for my notion of them being a temporary 'push'! Dislike...

LeeHoffmann

"Should I gang together with other men just to protect my interests?"...I think men should.

wow what a surprise. If women came on here and started posting things like 'we women should all band together to protect our interests', would there be an angry backlash from certain male posters?
You really think that's the most appropriate reaction?

DarkJager

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

wow what a surprise. If women came on here and started posting things like 'we women should all band together to protect our interests', would there be an angry backlash from certain male posters?
You really think that's the most appropriate reaction?

Just in case you didn't read his post correctly, he was quoting a letter from the Irish Examiner. And this is a forum for men to discuss issues so I'm not sure what issue you'd have anyway with a statement like that. Ladies Lounge is that way --->

maggy_thatcher

There's two problems I see with it:

Firstly - at the moment, I vote for who I think is the best candidate for the job -- in fact my first preference in the last election was for a woman. If any party has gender quotas enforced, I will automatically refuse to vote for any woman in that party unless they can somehow prove that they aren't there as a "making up the numbers" candidate. This means that they've got a lot more to prove than the male candidates in the same constituency.

Secondly, if you're a young man trying to get into politics, as a result of this you can pretty much forget about it! In most cases with each election a significant percentage of the previous candidates run again -- as it's predominantly male, the parties will be forced to pull in any new blood primarily from the female side of the party.

LeeHoffmann

Just in case you didn't read his post correctly, he was quoting a letter from the Irish Examiner.

Thanks but I can read. In case you didn't read my post correctly, I was responding to his comment/answer to the question posed in the article - i.e. "I think men should"

And this is a forum for men to discuss issues so I'm not sure what issue you'd have anyway with a statement like that. Ladies Lounge is that way --->

Gotta love this kind of response. Don't like a point of view? Can't argue against it? Ship 'em off the forum! Very enlightened.

iptba

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

wow what a surprise. If women came on here and started posting things like 'we women should all band together to protect our interests', would there be an angry backlash from certain male posters?
You really think that's the most appropriate reaction?

Are you claiming no women band together to protect their interests in Ireland or elsewhere? I think that's what the National Women's Council, for example, do and it could describe many feminism-inspired actions. Indeed, I think many/most academics in Women's Studies are driven by a similar drive.

Seems a bit like gender quotas: many feminists like them when they benefit women; wouldn't like them they if benefited men/disadvantaged women.

Logical Fallacy

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Gotta love this kind of response. Don't like a point of view? Can't argue against it? Ship 'em off the forum! Very enlightened.

It's a valid response, the forum is to discuss issues from a male point of view, the same ruling from a female perspective is enforced quite sternly on the Ladies Lounge. It's done it both cases to stop pointless "Yeah well...." and "what if..." debates that try and incite fights between genders.

With regard to the posters comment he obviously felt it was a legitimate reaction or he wouldn't have expressed it...funnily enough despite your own claims of dismissal all you could do was say "Yeah well, if women said that males would go nuts" instead of actually debating his point and expressing why it might be a bad idea.

By your own logic you didn't like a point of view and couldn't argue against it.

LeeHoffmann

Are you claiming no women band together to protect their interests in Ireland or elsewhere?

no. My post suggested that men or women banding together to 'protect their interests' might not be the most appropriate way to deal with issues like gender quotas

all you could do was say "Yeah well, if women said that males would go nuts" instead of actually debating his point

That example was used to show that if the shoe was on the other foot, it might not be so readily approved of. My point, which you've clearly missed, is that 'ganging together' is not the best way of dealing with such issues as it will only succeed in dividing people (on the basis of gender) even further. See here:

You really think that's the most appropriate reaction?

By your own logic you didn't like a point of view and couldn't argue against it.

That was not the argument made. See here:

Don't like a point of view? Can't argue against it? Ship 'em off the forum!

Do you see that 'don't like a point of view?' and 'can't argue against it?' are two separate situations. The former does not infer the latter, as you suppose.

the forum is to discuss issues from a male point of view, the same ruling from a female perspective is enforced quite sternly on the Ladies Lounge.

as I'm still only new to boards, I'll say that from what I've seen so far, TLL does not ban men from posting but bans them if they continuously try to derail threads. My post was on topic. However it's clear women aren't welcome here so I'll leave you to it

iptba

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Are you claiming no women band together to protect their interests in Ireland or elsewhere?

no. My post suggested that men or women banding together to 'protect their interests' might not be the most appropriate way to deal with issues like gender quotas.

Your post ignored the fact that women already do band together.

If women came on here and started posting things like 'we women should all band together to protect our interests', would there be an angry backlash from certain male posters?
You really think that's the most appropriate reaction?

It seemed more directed at having the right to suggest such an approach, that it was an outrageous/inappropriate thing to suggest when in fact women already did it and it isn't considered outrageous/inappropriate. Any discussion about whether men should or should not band together needs to be placed in that context.

LeeHoffmann wrote:

My point, which you've clearly missed, is that 'ganging together' is not the best way of dealing with such issues as it will only succeed in dividing people (on the basis of gender) even further.

I have just looked back at your posts (before this one) and I can't see that this is clear from what you said before that.

And the letter writer's point was that it was the gender quotas (and the people who pushed for them) that would/could drive men to band together, that they were dividing society up into men and women.

Otis Driftwood

LeeHoffmann,there is no need for the melodrama to be honest.Everyone is welcome to post in this forum,regardless of gender once the charter and spirit of the forum are upheld,which for my money in this thread they are being.

Everyone else,its of no concern to the mods in tGC how any other forum on boards is moderated,comparisons are unnecessary and add nothing to any debate so lets leave it at that please.

LeeHoffmann

Your post ignored the fact that women already do band together.

you didn't ask me whether women band together; you asked whether I was claiming that they don't. I answered that question, saying it wasn't my claim. I would say it's an inappropriate way to respond to a gender issue, whether it's women or men banding together. If a woman suggested that all women gang together to protect their interests in a similar manner - e.g. by not voting for men, I would see this as equally inappropriate and unhelpful. I don't know why I have to spell this out.
I'm aware of what the letter writer point was. My point was that this will further divide people - to make it very clear, gender quotas may divide people - I'm not contesting this or supporting it, but taking a stance of 'all men band together' can also only be divisive.

I

have just looked back at your posts (before this one) and I can't see that this is clear from what you said before that.

Apologies if that was unclear or vague. I thought that would be clear

iptba

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Your post ignored the fact that women already do band together.

you didn't ask me whether women band together; you asked whether I was claiming that they don't. I answered that question, saying it wasn't my claim. I would say it's an inappropriate way to respond to a gender issue, whether it's women or men banding together. If a woman suggested that all women gang together to protect their interests in a similar manner - e.g. by not voting for men, I would see this as equally inappropriate and unhelpful. I don't know why I have to spell this out.
I'm aware of what the letter writer point was. My point was that this will further divide people - to make it very clear, gender quotas may divide people - I'm not contesting this or supporting it, but taking a stance of 'all men band together' can also only be divisive.

The writer's point is that men have been pushed into this, and that it might be considered logical to do so.

There was no mention of voting specifically.

My point was that because men haven't banded together, we are being walked all over. Who is quoted on the "gender quotas" issue in the media where men will be discriminated against because of their gender (or genitalia, as some people put it)? The National Women's Council (and female TDs). If there was a proposal that involved some sort of quotas or other measure that disadvantaged women, a woman's group would either highlight it themselves or there is a good chance they would be asked their opinion and would get a chance to give it. And if there was a prominent male equivalent of the National Women's Council, I doubt they would be quoted on its own saying they liked the idea (and a male TD or two disagreeing).

Basically, I feel you are entitled to disagree with my conclusion; however, I think I am entitled to express the view - it's not that radical a suggestion as to be something that shouldn't be said. Your post didn't make a clear enough distinction, I think, between the two especially as in some places in society, one might be ostracized for saying such things - but it doesn't seem to be a proper "principle" for many, as women banding together is fine.

I'm copying the link below as I know from other sites people won't always follow links:

Dáil quota would fuel war of the sexes

Wednesday, June 08, 2011

I AM a man, supposedly one of the patriarchal ruling class. Yet in all my life, I have neither seen nor ever engaged in anti-woman discrimination.


The vast majority of men and women my age have lived in the same world. We are all feminists and egalitarians and happily so.

The top graduate in my engineering class in UCD was a woman, my boss’s boss’s boss is a woman, and my daughters are growing up in a world where they occasionally comment on old movies by asking things like; "Daddy, is that from the old days when silly people thought girls couldn’t fly a plane/shoot a gun/be in charge?".

The old days and the old ideas are dying every day and are already dead in my generation.

And yet, into this already changed world, and into my nominally republican Ireland, the Government is bringing in quotas for the Dáil.

This is a measure that makes war between the sexes a fixed and permanent part of our democracy rather than a relic of the past.

A measure that makes everyone ask "Are they a man/woman?" instead of asking "Are they a good candidate?"

A measure that betrays the faith people like me put in egalitarian ideas and makes me ask "Should I gang together with other men just to protect my interests?"

This is a mistake of great proportion. Worse, the existing parties are using these issues to cover up a bigger gambit — that they are using taxpayers’ money to fund their own political activities. They are copper-fastening their position as rulers of the state.

Under current law, these parties get to take money from people who oppose their rule (and I do) and they plan to do it using rules that I regard as undemocratic (and they are).

The smell of hypocrisy from the current government gets stronger every day.

Democracy, how are ya?

<name and address>

Link: http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/letters/dail-quota-would-fuel-war-of-the-sexes-157089.html#ixzz1OiYirqOX

LeeHoffmann

OK I have read this article already and understood what is being said!

There was no mention of voting specifically.

Is it not implied given the subject of the article and the context of the quote below? The writer says that this will make everyone ask question about a candidate´s gender when it comes to elections. In the very next sentence he says this makes him ask whether he should gang together with men to protect his interests.

A measure that makes everyone ask "Are they a man/woman?" instead of asking "Are they a good candidate?" A measure that betrays the faith people like me put in egalitarian ideas and makes me ask "Should I gang together with other men just to protect my interests?"

Hence, when you agreed that men should gang together, I took that to mean that men should only vote for other men "to protect their interests". If you only meant that men should form some kind of man´s group to protect men´s rights, then I find that about as uncontroversial as it gets.

I am entitled to express the view - it's not that radical a suggestion as to be something that shouldn't be said. Your post didn't make a clear enough distinction, I think, between the two especially as in some places in society, one might be ostracized for saying such things

nobody said you were not entitled to express your view. I never used the words radical or outrageous as per your previous posts. If I remember rightly, I was the one who was told to take my opinion elsewhere.

iptba

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

nobody said you were not entitled to express your view. I never used the words radical or outrageous as per your previous posts

This again is what you said:

wow what a surprise. If women came on here and started posting things like 'we women should all band together to protect our interests', would there be an angry backlash from certain male posters?
You really think that's the most appropriate reaction?

It seemed you were suggesting "an angry backlash" (from some women) would be an appropriate reaction to what I said (or else why mention it?) and you were questioning whether the suggestion could be an "appropriate reaction". Maybe that's how you disagree with things normally - seemed a bit stronger than a normal difference of opinions to me. There are certainly some in society who don't appear to like freedom of speech when the status quo with regard to feminism is challenged/questioned. Politicians generally run a mile from saying such things - it's not PC.

That, in my opinion, is one of the reasons why gender quotas are less necessary - lots of politicians aren't expressing masculist opinions and when feminist opinions are mentioned, other politicians tend to be afraid to challenge them.

Anyway, you have clarified your position since then. It doesn't mean everyone has your opinion. Lots of people incl. some men don't think men should band together - men should simply be "egalatarians". My point is that men can get walked over with this doormat approach.

If I remember rightly, I was the one who was told to take my opinion elsewhere.

I didn't suggest you should take your position elsewhere.

Dudess

Disagree with it - it's unfair and will create resentment. Sometimes a meritocracy is the only fair way.

Annasopra

Dudess wrote: »

Disagree with it - it's unfair and will create resentment. Sometimes a meritocracy is the only fair way.

Political selection isn't a meritocracy though

SugarHigh

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Political selection isn't a meritocracy though

Surely convincing an entire population that you are the most capable shows merit? Having the influence to make people trust and vote for you is a skill. You do need merit to be voted in. Whether these merits will make you good at the job is another thing but you still need to be skilled at electioneering. The person at electioneering wins even if that means building a team of people around you that will do it for.

The problem is that the people who are best at electioneering might not be the best at governing.

Annasopra

SugarHigh wrote: »

Surely convincing an entire population that you are the most capable shows merit? Having the influence to make people trust and vote for you is a skill. You do need merit to be voted in. Whether these merits will make you good at the job is another thing but you still need to be skilled at electioneering. The person at electioneering wins even if that means building a team of people around you that will do it for.

The problem is that the people who are best at electioneering might not be the best at governing.

I'm talking about candidate selection not winning an election. People and parties often select candidates for many reasons other than merit: because of who they know, because they sign up 50 new members, because they are related to the TD, because they have lots of money, because they are a big noise in the GAA, because of where they live.Let's not pretend that our parties select based on merit at the moment.

SugarHigh

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Let's not pretend that our parties select based on merit at the moment.

If you think a party is going to select a candidate when they think another candidate has a better chance of winning an election you're kidding yourself. They choose who is most likely to win and they base this decision on merit. You might not agree with what they view as being merits but it's still merit.

Even if they are picking someone just because they are related to a T.D that's still choosing on merit. The public clearly like a candidate who as least has name well known in politics so it is traditionally viewed as a merit that improves your odds of getting elected.

It is in the parties interest to choose the candidate who is most likely to successful.

Annasopra

SugarHigh wrote: »

If you think a party is going to select a candidate when they think another candidate has a better chance of winning an election you're kidding yourself. They choose who is most likely to win and they base this decision on merit. You might not agree with what they view as being merits but it's still merit.

Even if they are picking someone just because they are related to a T.D that's still choosing on merit. The public clearly like a candidate who as least has name well known in politics so it is traditionally viewed as a merit that improves your odds of getting elected.

It is in the parties interest to choose the candidate who is most likely to successful.

I don't think you actually understand what the word merit means.

iptba

I read somewhere that the percentage of women standing as independents was quite low (somewhere between 10% and 20%) for both the Dail and Seanad in the last elections. I'm not sure if we have data for parties but if it was similar the "problem" (if one wants to define it that way) would be much more women not put themselves forward rather than parties not selecting them.

autonomy

this idea is definitely a feminist at work, why can't the best become candidates, whether they are all men, all women, 50-50, gender isn't an issue

iptba

Johnnymcg wrote: »

SugarHigh wrote:

If you think a party is going to select a candidate when they think another candidate has a better chance of winning an election you're kidding yourself. They choose who is most likely to win and they base this decision on merit. You might not agree with what they view as being merits but it's still merit.

Even if they are picking someone just because they are related to a T.D that's still choosing on merit. The public clearly like a candidate who as least has name well known in politics so it is traditionally viewed as a merit that improves your odds of getting elected.

It is in the parties interest to choose the candidate who is most likely to successful.

I don't think you actually understand what the word merit means.

It is an interesting question how one defines merit in this contest. Jackie Healey-Rae (now retired) if he was standing for selection (for a party) might not be the most intellectually capable person (say - I actually have little idea about his intelligence - maybe he's a genius) but his vote-getting ability would surely get a big weighting in a selection contest. Every TD doesn't have to be "minister-material".

SugarHigh

Johnnymcg wrote: »

I don't think you actually understand what the word merit means.

I think you've just decided that what you consider to be merits are the only ones that are valid.

A party could decide Politician is the best one to run because he has the best policies or they could decide based on who has the most money. Having money means you will be able to fund your own campaign and not drain party resources and it also means you will have a larger campaign which makes you more likely to get elected.

Both candidates are being decided on merit they just happen to be different merits.

SugarHigh

iptba wrote: »

It is an interesting question how one defines merit in this contest. Jackie Healey-Rae (now retired) if he was standing for selection (for a party) might not be the most intellectually capable person (say - I actually have little idea about his intelligence - maybe he's a genius) but his vote-getting ability would surely get a big weighting in a selection contest. Every TD doesn't have to be "minister-material".

Exactly. A politician who has brilliant policies but no chance of getting elected isn't a good politician for the party to choose.

How can a politician who won't get elected have more merit than one that would? Johnny is just putting his own personal criteria on a pedestal they deserve to be on and deciding that since Parties aren't selecting based on the merits he favors then that means they aren't selecting on merit.

cocoa

I believe you are confusing merits with criteria. By your arguments, I could select candidates at random and claim they had the merit of being lucky...