Sexism in Dail Eireann?

hardybuck

Just came across an article this morning concerning a meeting being held this evening in which only female TDs and Senators are welcome.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1109/1224307250653.html

Fair play to Labour TD Joanna Tuffy who is boycotting the event.

I think this whole thing is very poorly thought out, and if females were excluded there would be a huge media storm.

seamus

Our agenda is to try and improve women’s representation in the Oireachtas – the Dáil and the Seanad – and to increase women’s representation in local elections,” she said.

There are plenty of male politicians who also have that agenda and/or who would support it.

It makes absolutely no sense therefore to actively exclude men from any such meeting, since they have just as much stake in it as women do.

Fair play to Tuffy for calling this out for what it is - a perfect example of the double-standard sexism that women's groups so often engage in.

Zulu

Yea it's fairly pathetic alright.
Clearly these "representatives of the people" couldn't careless about the voice of fellow members of their sex that voted for male officials. :rolleyes:

Ignorance & elitist: fantastic, just what we are short of in politics.

Zulu

seamus wrote: »

There are plenty of male politicians who also have that agenda and/or who would support it.

...who are the elected representives of other women don't forget!!!

hardybuck

The ringleader here is the same Mary Mitchell O'Connor who drove up the plinth and steps of Leinster House. Her judgement clearly isn't the best.

joe stodge

Minister for the Environment Phil Hogan has said political parties will have to implement a 30 per cent gender quota for general election candidates or else face severe financial penalties.

He has proposed that State funding for parties will be cut by half unless at least 30 per cent of the candidates they put forward are women.

would it not make more sense to have someone that is more suited to the job doing it rather than imposing a gender quota??

i'm not saying it to belittle women, i wouldnt think anything of it if the seats in the dail were 70% female to to 30% male. i just think its a stupid idea.

Snakeblood

joe stodge wrote: »

would it not make more sense to have someone that is more suited to the job doing it rather than imposing a gender quota??

i'm not saying it to belittle women, i wouldnt think anything of it if the seats in the dail were 70% female to to 30% male. i just think its a stupid idea.

A bold statement.

smash

hardybuck wrote: »

Fair play to Labour TD Joanna Tuffy who is boycotting the event.

She was on the radio yesterday saying it was awful and shouldn't be allowed. If it was reversed there'd be uproar. She also doesn't agree with gender quotas because it's the wrong way to do things.

Morag

So a bunch of women who work in a certain place are getting together to discuss and share their subjective experiences of working there as women and to see if there are any changes which should be made and could be made to the working conditions or culture which may encourage more women to consider running for office.

This is the first step in the process and it could be they will come out saying, sure everything grand, or they may end up with a list of a few thing which they can then work with everyone on getting suggestions to make changes.

I don't see how this is sexist, if a group of male nurses who are in the minority in a hospital want to have a meeting along the same I don't see how it's sexist.

If it was a group of T.D.s who were LGBT want to have a meeting along the same lines then I don't see what the issue is.

If T.D.s who are parents wanted to have a meeting along the same lines then I don't see what the issue is.

the groutch

in the last election 15% of candidates were women, and they got 13.5% of the seats.
if the electorate wanted female TDs, they would have voted for them.

Zulu

Sharrow wrote: »

So a bunch of women ...

You ommited the important part: they banned people from attending due to their sex. They silenced the opinions of elected representitives because of their sex.

Snakeblood

Zulu wrote: »

You ommited the important part: they banned people from attending due to their sex. They silenced the opinions of elected representitives because of their sex.

The remaining 141 T.D.s who were oppressed by the invitation to 25 female T.D.s will probably get over it.

Zulu

Snakeblood wrote: »

The remaining 141 T.D.s who were oppressed by the invitation to 25 female T.D.s will probably get over it.

That’s very much not the point. Democracy isn't about oppressing voices.
And besides, what of the all the women those 141 TD represent?

Their voice shouldn't be heard because the person they wanted to represent them has a penis?

Draupnir

This has happened a few times now, Ivana Bacik was involved in similar:

Senator Ivana Bacik: This prison seems to be forging ahead without anyone questioning whether we need these places. I was going to use the “L” word but I hesitate to use it, other Members of the House having fallen into problems, so I will say that misinformation rather than lies have been told about the need for more prison places in this country. The reality elsewhere shows us that if one builds bigger prisons, judges and sentences will fill them with people. This is the sad reality and we need to reappraise whether we need this many prisons, especially for women.

This week, we are fortunate to receive a visit from Baroness Jean Corston from the British House of Lords 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.

You can read about it at http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2008/05/20/unrevised1.pdf

Snakeblood

Zulu wrote: »

That’s very much not the point. Democracy isn't about oppressing voices.
And besides, what of the all the women those 141 TD represent?

Their voice shouldn't be heard because the person they wanted to represent them has a penis?

How is their voice being oppressed? This is a non governmental group. No man's role or rights in the Dail is being restricted.

Morag

Zulu wrote: »

You ommited the important part: they banned people from attending due to their sex. They silenced the opinions of elected representitives because of their sex.

So what sort of input will a td who is a man have in a discussion group which is about the experience of being a woman td in the dáil?

Zulu

Snakeblood wrote: »

How is their voice being oppressed?

Male TD's represent female members of society also. By banning males, you are banning the representitives of those female citizens.

Sharrow wrote: »

So what sort of input will a td who is a man have...?

Well absolutly fucking none, because they were banned. :rolleyes:

Banning people - do any of you think thats a progressive action.

Pherekydes

Sharrow wrote: »

So what sort of input will a td who is a man have in a discussion group which is about the experience of being a woman td in the dáil?

Maybe you could ask that of the guy who was representing the Women's council on Newstalk yesterday.

starbelgrade

I've heard from sources that Joanna Tuffy has a weener.

It wasn't me!

“It’s a women’s meeting and we are getting to know each other. Our agenda is to try and improve women’s representation in the Oireachtas – the Dáil and the Seanad – and to increase women’s representation in local elections,” she said.

That's not about the experience of women in the Oireachtas; it's about female representation. That's not a women's only issue.

MagicMarker

Snakeblood wrote: »

How is their voice being oppressed? This is a non governmental group. No man's role or rights in the Dail is being restricted.

So why are they meeting in the Dail? Why not meet at someone's home and have a slumber party instead?

stovelid

Some of our more sensitive male political representatives must be weeping at this callous disregard for their empathy and sensitivity to the rights and inner feelings of women.

It's as monumental a cock-blocking move as banning sensitive men from the know your nerds thread in the TLL would be.

Scanlas The 2nd

Pherekydes wrote: »

Maybe you could ask that of the guy who was representing the Women's council on Newstalk yesterday.

He was a muppet. He said we need more male feminists.

That's not what we need. Feminism isn't about equality, it's about advancing female rights yet feminists bang on about how important equality is. Anyone who goes on about equality being so important should campaign for fewer rights in the situations where that would make things equal, but I haven't heard that happen yet. Feminism is about selfishness, not that there is anything wrong with being selfish, but that's what it is.

Morag

Zulu wrote: »

Male TD's represent female members of society also. By banning males, you are banning the representitives of those female citizens.

Well absolutly fucking none, because they were banned. :rolleyes:

Banning people - do any of you think thats a progressive action.

That isn't what it's about.

It's about the experiences they have had as females running for election and being in the Dáil, something which males just don't have.

MagicMarker

Sharrow wrote: »

That isn't what it's about.

It's about the experiences they have had as females running for election and being in the Dáil, something which males just don't have.

If that's all it's about then why are they meeting in the Dail?

Zulu

Sharrow wrote: »

It's about...

Why ban men?

Morag

They are not meeting in the Dail chamber but one of the many meeting rooms, they all work there, they all work long hours it makes sense to have it in one of those rooms.

Zulu

Zulu wrote: »

Why ban men?

I repeat: why ban men?

Morag

Zulu wrote: »

Why ban men?

Say a bunch of fly fishermen are trying to have a meeting and someone who is an angler comes to the meeting, they will have to spend a lot of time explaining experiences to them as they just don't have the the experiences needed to take part in the discussions. Things which are important to the fly fishermen are going to seem trivial to the angler and having the angler there will slow up and side track the meeting dragging it off topic.

So the fly fishermen have a closed meeting for fly fishermen only.

joe stodge

Sharrow wrote: »

Say a bunch of fly fishermen are trying to have a meeting and someone who is an angler comes to the meeting, they will have to spend a lot of time explaining experiences to them as they just don't have the the experiences needed to take part in the discussions. Things which are important to the fly fishermen are going to seem trivial to the angler and having the angler there will slow up and side track the meeting dragging it off topic.

So the fly fishermen have a closed meeting for fly fishermen only.

that is no comparison.

Snakeblood

MagicMarker wrote: »

So why are they meeting in the Dail? Why not meet at someone's home and have a slumber party instead?

because they all go to the same place every day?

Pherekydes

Sharrow wrote: »

Say a bunch of fly fishermen are trying to have a meeting and someone who is an angler comes to the meeting, they will have to spend a lot of time explaining experiences to them as they just don't have the the experiences needed to take part in the discussions. Things which are important to the fly fishermen are going to seem trivial to the angler and having the angler there will slow up and side track the meeting dragging it off topic.

So the fly fishermen have a closed meeting for fly fishermen only.

This is about excluding a gender, not just some individuals who don't belong to a club.

Don't you get it? There is no 'positive' discrimination, only discrimination.

If women want full parity then they could do worse than to stop counting!

Pherekydes

Snakeblood wrote: »

because they all go to the same place every day?

So do the men elected!

Zulu

Sharrow wrote: »

... they will have to spend a lot of time explaining experiences to them as they just don't have the the experiences needed to take part in the discussions..

So men are too thick to understand what the women are talking about? Nice.

stovelid

Sharrow wrote: »

Say a bunch of fly fishermen are trying to have a meeting and someone who is an angler comes to the meeting, they will have to spend a lot of time explaining experiences to them as they just don't have the the experiences needed to take part in the discussions. Things which are important to the fly fishermen are going to seem trivial to the angler and having the angler there will slow up and side track the meeting dragging it off topic.

So the fly fishermen have a closed meeting for fly fishermen only.

So the next time all the anglers have their own meeting where fly fishermen are not invited, the fly fishermen would obviously be fine with that.

Logical Fallacy

Banning anyone is the kind of amateurish stuff that college level political interest will generate.

If you are actually seeking to make any kind of change you simply invite anyone who would be interested, regardless of their sex, religious denomination or gender.

All that happens if you close off the group is that you get a complete circle jerk (or in this case a circle flick i suppose) that quickly establishes an inner hierarchy, when the group expands, as it surely must to achieve it's goals, too many lines have already been drawn and people's ego's feel threatened when new players come into it who may be able to carry out roles better or have better ideas.

Nothing will come of this simply because they have already hamstrung any chance of affecting change by assuming the only people who can have a vagina.

Morag

stovelid wrote: »

So the next time all the anglers have their own meeting where fly fishermen are not invited, the fly fishermen would obviously be fine with that.

If they are talking only about things which are to do with anglers, then it's fine.
Would only be an issue if the anglers/flyfishers then went on to try at those meetings to influence law for all fishing rods.

hardybuck

Bringing in a quota will only promote positive discrimination. There may be an otherwise suitable candidate denied a role because of their gender under these new proposals.

Currently female politicans are on the ballot but they simply aren't as popular with the voters as many of their male counterparts.

Morag

Zulu wrote: »

So men are too thick to understand what the women are talking about? Nice.

Not thick just do not have the shared frame of reference required.

McCoy: Perhaps, we could cover a little philosophical ground. Life
McCoy: Death
McCoy: Life.
McCoy: Things of that nature.
Spock: I did not have time on Vulcan to review the philosophical disciplines.
McCoy: C'mon, Spock, it's me, McCoy. You really have gone where no man's gone before. Can't you tell me what it felt like?
Spock: It would be impossible to discuss the subject without a common frame-of-reference.

bronte

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/court-backs-portmarnock-golf-clubs-ban-on-women-432765.html

Court backs Portmarnock Golf Club's ban on women
Tuesday, November 03, 2009 - 01:23 PM

One of Ireland’s most prestigious golf clubs today won a legal bid to refuse women full membership.

The exclusive Portmarnock Golf Club in north Co Dublin went before Dublin’s Supreme Court as equality chiefs made a final attempt to get the club to change its rules.

Women can play at the course and pay green fees, but are not allowed to become full members.

Three of five judges who heard the case dismissed the challenge and ruled Portmarnock was a gentlemen’s club where golf was played.

Outside the court Joanna McMinn, of the Equality and Rights Alliance, called for equality legislation to be changed and updated.

She said the result was a bad day for equality and a bad day for women.

“It sends out a message that discrimination continues and this judgment upholds inequality for women,” said Ms McMinn.

“The exclusivity of Portmarnock is just a symptom of that.”

The action, which centred on a section of the Equal Status Act, was aimed at overturning a High Court ruling made three years ago which backed the club’s regulations.

The golf club had also had its alcohol licence suspended for a week in 2004 for refusing to accept female members.

But during the Supreme Court hearing last December a barrister for Portmarnock Golf Club argued that while the activity of the club was golf, its purpose was to cater for men only and on this basis it refused membership to women.

Counsel for the Equality Authority felt the club must allow women and men to become full members because it was “not a social club created for pure male society fraternity companionships”.

In his judgment Mr Justice Hugh Geoghegan said as Portmarnock provided external facilities it was not discriminating.

“Entitlement of female non-members to play golf in Portmarnock is not a point that is either helpful in argument to the club or to the Equality Authority on the points at issue,” he said.

Ms Justice Susan Denham, one of two judges who found against the club, said Portmarnock was a discriminating club as its principal purpose was golf.

“Portmarnock Golf Club is exactly what its name says – a golf club in Portmarnock,” she said.

“It caters for men and women in different ways. I would allow the appeal.”

Not very nice no matter where it happens.

Eoin

bronte wrote: »

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/court-backs-portmarnock-golf-clubs-ban-on-women-432765.html



Not very nice no matter where it happens.

Ah, this would be the totally irrelevant story about the ban which the equality authority admitted hadn't even received ONE complaint about.

hardybuck

I think that clubs are something seperate. Clubs are groups where like minded people form a group to pursue areas of common enjoyment. They are entitled to make up their own rules. Women are entitled to have use of their facilities, but not full membership. If they don't like it they can go to a neighbouring club.

For example a man can't join Curves Health Clubs. You see ads on the TV regularly for women's car insurance.

Zulu

Sharrow wrote: »

Not thick just do not have the shared frame of reference required.

Bollix (or fanny depending on what suits best). The human is perfectly capable of formulating educated thoughts on things they have not experienced. To dismiss wholly the thinking’s of a group of people simply because they don't share your genitallia is ignorance of the highest order.


…and the point that this is probably exactly the reason the meeting was held: to get men to denounce such bull**** ignorance isn’t lost on me. I just think it’s pathetic that there is such little regard or respect held for men in our society. The reality is, the few men that don’t respect women in Ireland, wouldn’t notice or care about this. The reality is, all these people are doing is insulting their own voters.

Zulu

bronte wrote: »

Not very nice no matter where it happens.

So you support political representitives having meeting in the Dail, and banning a group on account of their sex because a private golf club don't allow a particular sex becomming full members?

How exceptionally short sighted & petty of you.

bronte

Eoin wrote: »

Ah, this would be the totally irrelevant story about the ban which the equality authority admitted hadn't even received ONE complaint about.

Both are instances of exclusion based on gender. Not irrelevant.

flutterflye

I'm female, but I'm just not getting it - why the need to have an exclusively female meeting???
Surely you don't have to be female to have an opinion on the matter?

They are just drawing negative attention to themselves now sure.
If they had left it that everyone was welcome to come, alot of men would probably not have bothered to go anyway.

Snakeblood

Zulu wrote: »

Bollix (or fanny depending on what suits best). The human is perfectly capable of formulating educated thoughts on things they have not experienced. To dismiss wholly the thinking’s of a group of people simply because they don't share your genitallia is ignorance of the highest order.


…and the point that this is probably exactly the reason the meeting was held: to get men to denounce such bull**** ignorance isn’t lost on me. I just think it’s pathetic that there is such little regard or respect held for men in our society. The reality is, the few men that don’t respect women in Ireland, wouldn’t notice or care about this. The reality is, all these people are doing is insulting their own voters.

The idea that men are somehow held in little regard is a bit silly considering the majority of businesses have men in charge, the majority of T.D.s are men, the majority of any positions of power in Ireland, not to mention the world, barring possibly the Irish Countrywomen's Association have men at the helm.

Edit: I think it's a bit silly that they are excluding men, true. But I don't see men as being under attack from this.

bronte

Zulu wrote: »

So you support political representitives having meeting in the Dail, and banning a group on account of their sex because a private golf club don't allow a particular sex becomming full members?

How exceptionally short sighted & petty of you.

Where the hell did I say that?!
I think you'll find I said it's not very nice no matter where it happens.

Eoin

Suppose there was a political meeting about a different gender issue like unmarried fathers' rights. Should TDs that are female / married men / not parents be excluded? Do they all lack the frame of reference?

This is a load of nonsense, and I really regret giving Mitchell O'Connor my vote. The irony is that I voted for her rather than Bacik because of the crap that Bacik spouts.

Zulu

Snakeblood wrote: »

The idea that men are somehow held in little regard is a bit silly.

I don't mean by society as a whole, but rather those who felt it's a good idea to ban men.

bronte wrote: »

Where the hell did I say that?!
I think you'll find I said it's not very nice no matter where it happens.

Why did you bring the issue of the golf club into this if not to try and justify the actions of those politicans?

Eoin

bronte wrote: »

Both are instances of exclusion based on gender. Not irrelevant.

It is absolutely irrelevant, because it's a private club. There is nothing more than a very tenuous parallel between the two.