Absence of decent female candidates for the Presidency

harrythehat

Where is the Mary Robinson of our day?

In an election where we are fielding the most candidates ever, we seem to be lacking in strong, intelligent, qualified women.

And I don't think it's because they are not out there.

What female would you like to have seen running for the Aras, assuming Dana and Mary Davis don't float your boat?

Any why haven't they?

Victor

I don't see any male constitutional lawyers either.

Zubeneschamali

harrythehat wrote: »

we seem to be lacking in strong, intelligent, qualified women.

Men, too.

harrythehat

Fair enough points.

But Michael D and David Norris (whatever else you might say about him) are renowned intellectuals.

Sean Gallagher is a business man and entrepeneur.

Gay Mitchell has several strings to his bow though he hasn't done a very good job of bringing them to light so far.

Dana and Mary Davis just lack the kind of intellect and dignity I would like to see from a woman running for the office. They both have achievements under their belts, but I can't help thinking we could do better.

As you've said, this could apply across the boards but I think in particular it's the case for female candidates.

Liam Byrne

Sexist thread.

As others have said, the level of talent on offer across the board is dire; if Michael D wasn't running it'd be a race to the bottom.

T runner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Sexist thread.

As others have said, the level of talent on offer across the board is dire; if Michael D wasn't running it'd be a race to the bottom.

So any thread bemoaning the lack of female candidates in the ruling class even in the one area where thay have recently ahd success is automatically sexist?

BTW you said youd never vote for any party again who brought in gender quotas? You wont be voting for FG any more so i hope. Hard to take for a born and FG man. But you critisize others for not having integrity so im sure youll be true to your word! lol

pubview

Pope Sinead is still looking for a man and hasn't the time.

Godge

There were few suitable and willing female candidates out there.

Some are disgraced for the way this country has been ruined - Mary Harney, Mary Hanafin, Maire Geoghegan-Quinn.

Some didn't get through the selection process - Mairead McGuinness.

Some are probably too old and didn't want it - Gemma Hussey

Some didn't seem to put their name forward - Niamh Breathnach, Nora Owen, Liz McManus

Some are too lightweight - Miriam O'Callaghan, Marion Finucane

Wouldn't have voted for the women from RTE, FF or the PDs but the others would have been well worth a vote.

pubview

Niamh Breathnach was a disastrous Minister for Education, even at one stage defending the lecturer selection procedures which allowed Father Sean Fortune access to so many schools. FF's then Education spokesman Michael Martin nailed her in the Dáil over it.

Corsendonk

Victor wrote: »

I don't see any male constitutional lawyers either.

RTE seems obsessed with Presidental candidates having this qualification. Where Dev, Hillary, Childers and Hyde constituational lawyers? Does not the council of state provide constituational advice if needed to the president or does RTE think we are going to enter a period of constituational crisis?

whydoibother?

The cynic in me feels that a woman couldn't win this time. I've heard a few too many comments to the effect that it's about time we had a man again for balance, generally by people who have no issue whatsoever with the fact that we've never had a female Taoiseach. I think knowing that that attitude exists, will have influenced parties not to field female candidates and also County Councils and Oireachtas members may have considered them a waste of nominations.

Corsendonk

Godge wrote: »

There were few suitable and willing female candidates out there.

Some are disgraced for the way this country has been ruined - Mary Harney, Mary Hanafin, Maire Geoghegan-Quinn.

Some didn't get through the selection process - Mairead McGuinness.

Some are probably too old and didn't want it - Gemma Hussey

Some didn't seem to put their name forward - Niamh Breathnach, Nora Owen, Liz McManus

Some are too lightweight - Miriam O'Callaghan, Marion Finucane

Wouldn't have voted for the women from RTE, FF or the PDs but the others would have been well worth a vote.

Nora Owen is discredited IMHO with the frequency she mentions her family Michael Collins connection. Old style Irish politics of trading on the Civil War name. One of the reasons the country got into a mess.

FreudianSlippers

This is the biggest joke of a pool of Presidential candidates in the State IMO, with Dana being the biggest joke of them all; and that's saying a lot with the recent Norris issues!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FreudianSlippers

I'll do it

CDfm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Has having a woman President benefited us in any way.

Has having a constitutional lawyer as a President benifited us in any way ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CDfm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Has any President's intervention either legislative or otherwise contributed in any way to our country , goverence or democracy.

And, you may take your time to answer that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CDfm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

OK.

Thats killed that point.

Have you read & enjoyed Michael D's poetry ???

Liam Byrne

T runner wrote: »

So any thread bemoaning the lack of female candidates in the ruling class even in the one area where thay have recently ahd success is automatically sexist?

BTW you said youd never vote for any party again who brought in gender quotas? You wont be voting for FG any more so i hope. Hard to take for a born and FG man. But you critisize others for not having integrity so im sure youll be true to your word! lol

Who's this "born and FG man" that you're waffling about ?

Please make at least some sense with your questions if you wish to get an answer.

CDfm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'll do it

Can I be on the Council of State, it would make my Mum happy.

laoch na mona

gender is unimportant in every job

CDfm

laoch na mona wrote: »

gender is unimportant in every job

in the constitution mothers are singled out for special treatment

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

in the constitution mothers are singled out for special treatment

Yeah - thanks to the constitution I've always felt special .

RichardAnd

laoch na mona wrote: »

gender is unimportant in every job

That simply isn't true. There are and ever shall be certain jobs that favour men over women and likewise in the opposite case. In the military, women are allowed to join a soldiers but the British SAS is entirely made up of males as the requirements of such a position are simply too punishing and physically demanding for the vast majority of women.

At the same time, childcare and other such professions are generally dominated by women as the empathy needed rules out alot of men. In my own case, I'd much rather run for five miles and go camping Bear Grylls style than try to look after a room full of screaming kids.

The modern world seems to be fixated on the perception of equality. To achieve this, some extreme liberals are happy to see the perceived preferred case discriminant against in favour of the perceived minority. The gender quotas are a prime example of this yet they are not only unfair to men, they are insulting to women as they suggest that special rules are needed for women to achieve high ambitions.

The differences between the genders can be hacked ad nauseum but it will never change the fact that men and women are different on many levels. And you know what, I'm glad we are because it's the differences and contrasts that make people interesting and the world can be dull enough as it is.

Zubeneschamali

RichardAnd wrote: »

In the military, women are allowed to join a soldiers but the British SAS is entirely made up of males as the requirements of such a position are simply too punishing and physically demanding for the vast majority of women.

This is just left-over prejudice. The SAS is too punishing and physically demanding for most men, too, but if they sign up and make the grade, they're in.

In time, the same will be true for women.

CDfm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In time, the same will be true for women.

I have an image of lurking female Gurkka's.

Having seen US infantry , they were tiny, so size is not really an issue.

The psychology of soldiering i.e. protectin women and children would need to change or evolve to saying women are expendable and rape may happen will no doubt occur.

RichardAnd

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is just left-over prejudice. The SAS is too punishing and physically demanding for most men, too, but if they sign up and make the grade, they're in.

In time, the same will be true for women.

Of course most men wouldn't make the cut, the SAS are the best of the best but in general, men are more suited to soldiery than women and the exceptions are just that. To make it into the SAS, someone needs to be s**t-hard, outstandingly fit, have a mien as cool as ice and be able to take brutal psychological experiences. As males of virtually all species are stronger and harder than females, we are naturally going to be more suitable to military service.

Historically, women were never heavily involved in martial affairs and that wasn't simple misogyny. This has changed in the last few decades but aside from physical discrepancies, there are many psychological reasons why mixed gender armies can have serious problems.

A very interesting article can be found below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military#Psychological_concerns

Well, luckily you don't need to be in the SAS for the presidency.

I don't see that the absence of decent female candidates in particular is an issue. A cynic might suggest the absence of any decent candidates is the problem...

Victor

Interestingly, both American and Australian special forces are recruiting women for use in Afghanistan - simply because male soldiers won't be allowed interact with female civilians - why ignore 50% of your inteligence subjects? Winning a war isn't just about killing people.

But aren't we getting a bit off topic?

RichardAnd

Victor wrote: »

Interestingly, both American and Australian special forces are recruiting women for use in Afghanistan - simply because male soldiers won't be allowed interact with female civilians - why ignore 50% of your inteligence subjects. Winning a war isn't just about killing people.

But aren't we gettign a bit off topic?

Pretty much, but I do that alot. Just can resist an interesting topic

CDfm

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't see that the absence of decent female candidates in particular is an issue. ..

Obviously not a Special K or Dana fan.

T runner

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You should run. Weve never had a troll as president.

T runner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Who's this "born and FG man" that you're waffling about ?

Please make at least some sense with your questions if you wish to get an answer.

The very clear implication is that that would be you. You may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, or are you pretending to be blunt?

T runner

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I agree with the implication of the powerlessness of the job. The position is basically replcing the one of Viceroy minus the power and teh British connection.

I do think that the ceremonial roles of heads of state do bring some value: economic and cultural to a state, by building bridges between states.

So, yes we need someone in this position as they do benefit is, even though their power locally is unfortunately quite limited.

CDfm

Victor wrote: »

Interestingly, both American and Australian special forces are recruiting women for use in Afghanistan - simply because male soldiers won't be allowed interact with female civilians - why ignore 50% of your inteligence subjects? Winning a war isn't just about killing people.

But aren't we getting a bit off topic?

Is the President is Commanderinr in Chief of the Armed Forces and appoints officers.

harrythehat

The suggestion that this thread is sexist brought a smile to my face.

I'm bemoaning firstly the lack of decent candidates full stop but more particularly the lack of decent female candidates.Why - because I think there are a lot of talented, intelligent women out there who could give MDH and Sean Gallagher a run for their money and I'm wondering where they are!

T runner

CDfm wrote: »

Has having a woman President benefited us in any way.

Has having a constitutional lawyer as a President benifited us in any way ?

I would have said that ahving someone of teh caliber of Mary Robinson as head of state would have benefitted our perception internationally as well as changing the perception of the role locally.

Having a woman in the role was of benefit particularly to show other women that it was possible to do well (extremely difficult, but possible) in this patriarchal society and she did indeed attempt this. Thats aid she was actually lucky to get in given teh timing of the Lenihan scandal and it was nearly the standard old male, retired FF politician type that this backward male dominated society loved to elect. She emphatically broke taht cycle. Surely a good thing?



Having a female, liberal, independent thinker as head of state may have temporarily improved our perception internationally as a more socially advanced state, attractive for people, groups and corporations etc of a like philosophy.

She used her position to develop civil rights in countries that needed it including our own. Surely a good thing also?

T runner

harrythehat wrote: »

The suggestion that this thread is sexist brought a smile to my face.

I'm bemoaning firstly the lack of decent candidates full stop but more particularly the lack of decent female candidates.Why - because I think there are a lot of talented, intelligent women out there who could give MDH and Sean Gallagher a run for their money and I'm wondering where they are!

Theer should be still plenty there right now.....this article seems to indicate that girls of as young as 3 are coralled down a different path to the one that might lead them to the Aras......

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2011/0924/1224304669782.html

It also indicates in future we may have even more male candidates...who are encouraged not to read from the age of 3....

bullpost

What about yer woman that I've seen on posters around town?

Looks a bit like Mary Davis but is at least 30 years younger

harrythehat wrote: »

The suggestion that this thread is sexist brought a smile to my face.

I'm bemoaning firstly the lack of decent candidates full stop but more particularly the lack of decent female candidates.Why - because I think there are a lot of talented, intelligent women out there who could give MDH and Sean Gallagher a run for their money and I'm wondering where they are!

pubview

harrythehat wrote: »

The suggestion that this thread is sexist brought a smile to my face.

Best place for it.

T runner

bullpost wrote: »

What about yer woman that I've seen on posters around town?

Looks a bit like Mary Davis but is at least 30 years younger

Ditto.....the male candidates...all wearing make up.

CDfm

T runner wrote: »

y.

She used her position to develop civil rights in countries that needed it including our own. Surely a good thing also?

The role model thing ok.

But, did she actually do constitutional presidenty thingies ?

Refer Bill's to the supreme court a la O'Dailagh or have a squabble 'bout disolving the Dail a la Hillary ?

bullpost

Hmm - bit harder to make Michael D or David Norris look 30 years younger

T runner wrote: »

Ditto.....the male candidates...all wearing make up.

T runner

laoch na mona wrote: »

gender is unimportant in every job

To be very accurate...gender should be irrelevent in almost every job.

T runner

CDfm wrote: »

in the constitution mothers are singled out for special treatment

Yep, they are told their place is in the home.

RichardAnd

T runner wrote: »

Yep, they are told their place is in the home.

The Constitution was written in the 30s, so it will naturally contain ideals from its time. The idea was never to oppress women, they were simply to be treated in the manner of the times. Women aren't told that anymore so why ruffle the feathers

CDfm

T runner wrote: »

Yep, they are told their place is in the home.

Ahem, they were told that it is their right to be in the home.

So it is a right that men do not have and the primacy of women based on that gets carried thru in social policy, social welfare, housing etc etc etc .

Mary Robinson was the champion of downtrodden men everywhere but Ireland.:mad:

Zubeneschamali

RichardAnd wrote: »

The Constitution was written in the 30s

by a bunch of FFers and the Bishops.

There was none of that in the 1922 Free State constitution.

Zubeneschamali

CDfm wrote: »

Ahem, they were told that it is their right to be in the home.

The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.