Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sexism in Dail Eireann?

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Eoin
    Registered Users Posts: 21,253 ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    It's OK when there's sound logic behind the reasons, yes.


  • Options
    #63
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    smash wrote: »
    Joanna Tuffy's problem with this is that the issues to be discussed, while mostly relate to women, also affect men so they should not be excluded.

    Yeah, that's true. However, this isn't a group that is going to come to a decision, railroad through legislation and change society. It's a group that's going to find if there is common ground to go forward on among women, presumably. At least one woman doesn't want to be part of it so far, indicating views might not be monolithic.

    Like. I don't see the problem in a group asking itself for consensus before expanding to ask for action among the wider group.


  • Options
    #64
    hardybuck
    Registered Users Posts: 5,167 ✭✭✭hardybuck


    Just to agree with Eoin and to summarise: It is ok for private clubs. It isn't ok when it comes into areas like employment.


  • Options
    #65
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    hardybuck wrote: »
    Just to agree with Eoin and to summarise: It is ok for private clubs. It isn't ok when it comes into areas like employment.

    This isn't employment. This is political representation.


  • Options
    #66
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,156 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    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.

    I didn't read that into it at all.
    Zulu wrote: »
    Why did you bring the issue of the golf club into this if not to try and justify the actions of those politicans?

    Surely it was to show that it's always wrong? That's what I read into it, anyway. Her comment at the end is most telling.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    who the fug
    Registered Users Posts: 4,041 ✭✭✭who the fug


    Visions of baby doll outfits and pillow fights rapidly give way to a collection of Irish mammies wittering on about how great their son is doing.


    Complete non issue


  • Options
    #68
    hardybuck
    Registered Users Posts: 5,167 ✭✭✭hardybuck


    Snakeblood wrote: »
    This isn't employment. This is political representation.

    Are they not employed as our political representatives?


  • Options
    #69
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    hardybuck wrote: »
    Are they not employed as our political representatives?

    Yes, they are. However the purpose is not to get more jobs for women and turf out men, the point is to encourage women's representation in the upper echelons of the politics of the country.


  • Options
    #70
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Her comment at the end is most telling.
    I'd suggest this comment is more telling:
    bronte wrote: »
    So it's okay when it suits you really?

    Fair enough.
    There is a vast, vast, gulf of a difference between a golf club, Curves gym, and political representatives meeting in the Dail.

    You really should be able to appricate that.


  • Options
    #71
    bronte
    Registered Users Posts: 11,331 ✭✭✭✭bronte


    Zulu wrote: »
    I'd suggest this comment is more telling:

    There is a vast, vast, gulf of a difference between a golf club, Curves gym, and political representatives meeting in the Dail.

    You really should be able to appricate that.

    You really just can't accept the original point I made can you?
    Forget it!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    hardybuck
    Registered Users Posts: 5,167 ✭✭✭hardybuck


    Snakeblood wrote: »
    Yes, they are. However the purpose is not to get more jobs for women and turf out men, the point is to encourage women's representation in the upper echelons of the politics of the country.

    We've had a female President for the last 21 years. There has also been a female Tanaiste for 12 of the last 14 years. The last election saw a record amount of female's enter office. Things are moving on in politics and society.

    Don't even attempt to say that you would be ok if 25 male TDs were meeting tonight to try and put a halt to the amount of women entering office, and to try and try to develop ideas to get more men into office.


  • Options
    #73
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    hardybuck wrote: »
    We've had a female President for the last 21 years. There has also been a female Tanaiste for 12 of the last 14 years. The last election saw a record amount of female's enter office. Things are moving on in politics and society.

    Don't even attempt to say that you would be ok if 25 male TDs were meeting tonight to try and put a halt to the amount of women entering office, and to try and try to develop ideas to get more men into office.

    They are moving on. And do you know how they moved on? Meetings like this. Concerned people talking about their concerns and deciding how to empower themselves.


  • Options
    #74
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,156 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Zulu wrote: »
    There is a vast, vast, gulf of a difference between a golf club, Curves gym, and political representatives meeting in the Dail.

    The 'Golf' club argued that it was, in fact, a Gentlemen's club, and won its appeal in that fashion. It's quite common for exercise or sports classes to be segregated on the basis of gender, age or standard. Whether it's right is debateable.

    That is all irrelevant, however, to a body which purports to represent the public. All of it.

    The TD I voted for wasn't selected on the basis of their gender. They purport to represent all of their constituents. And I'm glad they are not attending this divisive, sexist meeting.


  • Options
    #75
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Eek - it's total discrimination. Not good.
    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.
    Agreed. Gender quotas is rubbish and counter-productive IMO. There needs to be more positive encouragement for women to become involved in public representation, rather than the gender quota approach. This meeting is apparently addressing the former, but I don't see how men wouldn't have anything valuable to contribute at it.
    Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »
    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.
    Depends on the type of feminism. Some terrible ignorance around the whole area. Just because there are feminists who believe in women having an advantage over men doesn't mean there aren't feminists who just believe in equality.
    Zulu wrote: »
    So men are too thick to understand what the women are talking about? Nice.
    While I disagree with Sharrow and I agree with you, she did not say that.

    "If it were the reverse, there'd be uproar" - why can't there be uproar about this?


  • Options
    #76
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    the groutch wrote: »
    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.

    If you could find me a source for that it would be awesome. After the last election I compared the success rate of female candidates for each party and it was just slightly lower than men. In the Labour party they had a higher proportion of female candidates than the others and the success rate was the same.
    I'd also love to see the proportion on independent candidates who were women. If that was higher than the proportion nominated by parties then they may just have an argument about being discriminated against. :pac:


  • Options
    #77
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    bronte wrote: »
    You really just can't accept the original point I made can you?
    Forget it!
    If your point is that it's bad to ban people because of their sex - it's a point I wholly agree with.

    If your point is to discredit people giving out the Dail meeting, because they don't think Curves or Portmarnock are comparable, then no: I can't accept that.


  • Options
    #78
    hardybuck
    Registered Users Posts: 5,167 ✭✭✭hardybuck


    Snakeblood wrote: »
    They are moving on. And do you know how they moved on? Meetings like this. Concerned people talking about their concerns and deciding how to empower themselves.

    So you are saying you'd be happy to see a group of 25 concerned male TDs meeting about their concerns about why there aren't as many male TDs as they used to, and how they should empower themselves further?

    The people decide who they want. There just happen to be more educated and qualified women now than there were in the 60's and 70's.


  • Options
    #79
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    hardybuck wrote: »
    So you are saying you'd be happy to see a group of 25 concerned male TDs meeting about their concerns about why there aren't as many male TDs as they used to, and how they should empower themselves further?

    The people decide who they want. There just happen to be more educated and qualified women now than there were in the 60's and 70's.

    No, I'm not, because with the overrepresentation of men in the dail, that's not a legitimate concern. It's a ludicrous concern.


  • Options
    #80
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Dudess wrote: »
    Agreed. Gender quotas is rubbish and counter-productive IMO. There needs to be more positive encouragement for women to become involved in public representation, rather than the gender quota approach. This meeting is apparently addressing the former, but I don't see how men wouldn't have anything valuable to contribute at it.

    How and how much though? Women make up a higher proportion of candidates in parties than as independents so I don't see how anyone can say the parties could be holding them back. By making it easier for a part of the population to get a nomination just increases the chances of getting a slimy pole-climber as a candidate in the end.


  • Options
    #81
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,156 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Snakeblood wrote: »
    No, I'm not, because with the overrepresentation of men in the dail, that's not a legitimate concern. It's a ludicrous concern.

    How are men overrepresented? Are the men in the Dáil representing only men, and the women only women?

    Because that's total bull.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    How are men overrepresented? Are the men in the Dáil representing only men, and the women only women?

    Because that's total bull.

    White people are under-represented in The Oval Office by their logic. :pac:


  • Options
    #83
    hardybuck
    Registered Users Posts: 5,167 ✭✭✭hardybuck


    Snakeblood wrote: »
    No, I'm not, because with the overrepresentation of men in the dail, that's not a legitimate concern. It's a ludicrous concern.

    As ludicrous as Mitchell-O'Connor and her chums. As I stated before, she lacks sound judgement.

    If she had more nous she would have invited men to this meeting rather than choosing to exclude them. How can you complain about lack of representation or balance in our political system, and in the process of looking for suggestions on how to resolve this have no representation at all from men.

    So hypocritical its unreal! And as many others have mentioned, she isn't representing women, she and the others are representing their constituents.


  • Options
    #84
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    How are men overrepresented? Are the men in the Dáil representing only men, and the women only women?

    Because that's total bull.

    No, they're not only representing men, or women only representing women. But luckily, I didn't make that argument.

    Men are overrepresented because there's 52% or so of the population that are women in the country, and yet there's 13.8% women in the dail. There's an obvious disparity which should be examined. I don't think it should be equal for the sake of equality, but I do think it bears examination why the imbalance is so wide.

    Why aren't women feeling like they can be elected, that sort of thing. It may well be a more valid exercise to ask women who have been elected what obstacles they felt they encountered.


  • Options
    #85
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    The merit of the meeting is NOT the point.

    The point is that a sex was BANNED from the meeting.


  • Options
    #86
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    Zulu wrote: »
    The merit of the meeting is NOT the point.

    The point is that a sex was BANNED from the meeting.

    Well, actually, the point for me is 'why' they were banned. The point for you is 'that' they were banned.


  • Options
    #87
    Hygro
    Registered Users Posts: 730 ✭✭✭Hygro


    What's wrong with being sexy ...?


  • Options
    #88
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Snakeblood wrote: »
    No, they're not only representing men, or women only representing women. But luckily, I didn't make that argument.

    Men are overrepresented because there's 52% or so of the population that are women in the country, and yet there's 13.8% women in the dail. There's an obvious disparity which should be examined. I don't think it should be equal for the sake of equality, but I do think it bears examination why the imbalance is so wide.

    Why aren't women feeling like they can be elected, that sort of thing. It may well be a more valid exercise to ask women who have been elected what obstacles they felt they encountered.

    As I said, women make up a higher proportion of candidates in parties than as independents so the it seems the parties are already skewing towards women candidates somewhat.


  • Options
    #89
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,156 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Snakeblood wrote: »
    Men are overrepresented because there's 52% or so of the population that are women in the country, and yet there's 13.8% women in the dail.

    Again, by putting out those figures, you're suggesting that 48% of the population is represented by 86.2% of TDs, which is nonsense. It was an argument that was taken apart by Joanna Tuffy on Newstalk yesterday evening. Every TD in the Dáil claims that they represent all of their constituents. And they wouldn't dare do otherwise.


  • Options
    #90
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    amacachi wrote: »
    As I said, women make up a higher proportion of candidates in parties than as independents so the it seems the parties are already skewing towards women candidates somewhat.

    They're all having their arms twisted because of 30% minimum requirement or the parties funding gets halved. That's the thing about a status quo, you have to push things or they won't change.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Again, by putting out those figures, you're suggesting that 48% of the population is represented by 86.2% of TDs, which is nonsense. It was an argument that was taken apart by Joanna Tuffy on Newstalk yesterday evening. Every TD in the Dáil claims that they represent all of their constituents. And they wouldn't dare do otherwise.

    No, I'm not suggesting that. I already said it was bollocks.


Advertisement