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
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Snakeblood wrote: »
    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.

    Again, women are a smaller proportion of independent candidates than of party candidates so the parties are already doing enough in my eyes. Some blame the party "structures" or whatever when the simple fact of the matter is that even where there's no party women tend to stand less than men.


  • Options
    #93
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    amacachi wrote: »
    Again, women are a smaller proportion of independent candidates than of party candidates so the parties are already doing enough in my eyes. Some blame the party "structures" or whatever when the simple fact of the matter is that even where there's no party women tend to stand less than men.

    I'm not really sure what you're arguing. I believe the meeting is how to encourage more women to stand as T.D.s. It's not as if they have a genetic predisposition not to stand because of the ovaries. The party thing is encouraging the parties to select them. Another thing might be to encourage women to stand as independents.


  • Options
    #94
    busyliving
    Registered Users Posts: 1,428 ✭✭✭busyliving


    Really gotta love the double standards...you won't hear those feminists giving out about this kinda thing...even thought this kind of discrimination is the kind of thing they are "fighting"...

    Fcuking twats:D


  • Options
    #95
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,156 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Snakeblood wrote: »
    No, I'm not suggesting that. I already said it was bollocks.

    Oh, right, I took you up wrong, then.

    So who is actually making these statements:
    Snakeblood wrote: »
    Men are overrepresented...

    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.

    Besides all that, a question begs itself: why ask the women, who were elected, what obstacles they faced to being elected? Surely it would be more instructive to ask the women who weren't elected what problems they faced?

    One posted mentioned that they voted for Mary Mitchell-O'Connor ahead of Ivana Bacik, so presumably gender wasn't a factor.

    Perhaps their gender is less of an issue than they are making out? Maybe it's other stuff, like family pressures, which aren't restricted to women, so it would make even less sense to exclude men from these types of meetings.


  • Options
    #96
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Snakeblood wrote: »
    I'm not really sure what you're arguing. I believe the meeting is how to encourage more women to stand as T.D.s. It's not as if they have a genetic predisposition not to stand because of the ovaries. The party thing is encouraging the parties to select them. Another thing might be to encourage women to stand as independents.

    What I'm arguing is that the parties shouldn't be forced into having any proportion of their candidates representing any group.

    While I doubt the physical presence of ovaries prevents women from standing for election to the Dail, something does. The fact that parties have a higher proportion of women candidates than who stand as independents says to me that there's nothing in the party structure discriminating against women and if anything it may be biased towards them as it is.

    As I said, introducing quotas will do nothing but increase how many pole-climbers end up getting elected.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Perhaps their gender is less of an issue than they are making out? Maybe it's other stuff, like family pressures, which aren't restricted to women, so it would make even less sense to exclude men from these types of meetings.

    Ivana Bacik is just hilarious. Her excuse after the last election was that the party didn't support her well enough. Apparently putting her as the party leader's running mate wasn't enough support. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #98
    FetchTheGin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭FetchTheGin


    Sharrow wrote: »
    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.


    Ah, an unusual response from you sharrow... :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #99
    py2006
    Registered Users Posts: 9,847 ✭✭✭py2006


    Are men even allowed to hold a male only meeting these days?

    The way things are these days, any male in the public eye who even remotely suggests it would probably have to step down from the position or at the very least make a grovelling apology to the (offended) women of Ireland.


  • Options
    #100
    FetchTheGin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭FetchTheGin


    py2006 wrote: »
    Are men even allowed to hold a male only meeting these days?

    The way things are these days men (politians) would be fearful of even suggesting it.

    Some of the same posters in here that agree with it, or say it isn't an issue, will still complain about advertising aimed at men and lobby for it to be banned.

    Same old double standard sexism bull****.


  • Options
    #101
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Oh, right, I took you up wrong, then.

    So who is actually making these statements:



    Besides all that, a question begs itself: why ask the women, who were elected, what obstacles they faced to being elected? Surely it would be more instructive to ask the women who weren't elected what problems they faced?

    One posted mentioned that they voted for Mary Mitchell-O'Connor ahead of Ivana Bacik, so presumably gender wasn't a factor.

    Perhaps their gender is less of an issue than they are making out? Maybe it's other stuff, like family pressures, which aren't restricted to women, so it would make even less sense to exclude men from these types of meetings.

    Yeah, again, you did take me up wrong. Nowhere do I say that men are only representing men or women only represent women, and you keep arguing as if I am. I'm not. What you posted that I said is: There's a gender imbalance in the Dail (this is inarguable), and again, it seems worthwhile to examine why that is (this is debateable, but I feel it is).

    You're conflating me being concerned about the amount of female T.D.s in the Dail with me being concerned about female interests not being represented in the dail.

    I don't care why one poster voted for one woman over another, I care about why there seems to be a systemic imbalance in TDs gender ratios. Maybe there's a good reason, maybe there isn't, but unless the issue is looked at, it won't be resolved (and possibly not then).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Snakeblood wrote: »
    I care about why there seems to be a systemic imbalance in TDs gender ratios. Maybe there's a good reason, maybe there isn't, but unless the issue is looked at, it won't be resolved (and possibly not then).
    And do you believe that having exclusive, sexist meetings are a constructive why of addressing this issue?

    Or are you happy to denounce them as petty and pathetic?


  • Options
    #103
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    busyliving wrote: »
    Really gotta love the double standards...you won't hear those feminists giving out about this kinda thing...even thought this kind of discrimination is the kind of thing they are "fighting"...

    Fcuking twats:D
    Not saying it's right, and it is hypocritical, but I find the expectations that all feminists should be giving out about discrimination against men to be kinda obtuse. Would men's rights activists be expected to voice objection to discrimination against women? And they can push the equality line too, to be fair.

    I just think it would look less hostile and more constructive if those angered by inequalities and obstacles faced by men concentrated on making this heard, instead of pondering why feminists aren't doing it.


  • Options
    #104
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,297 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    bronte wrote: »
    Not very nice no matter where it happens.
    Although it's not nice when it happens, it is unacceptable for an elected representative to ban other elected representatives based on their sex.
    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.
    So you are saying that men cannot represent women
    Snakeblood wrote: »
    I do think it bears examination why the imbalance is so wide.
    It bears examination why women prefer men representing them rather than other women?
    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.
    So you are saying that men cannot represent women
    Snakeblood wrote: »
    I do think it bears examination why the imbalance is so wide.
    It bears examination why women prefer men representing them rather than other women?
    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.
    So you are saying that men cannot represent women
    Snakeblood wrote: »
    I do think it bears examination why the imbalance is so wide.
    It bears examination why women prefer men representing them rather than other women?
    Snakeblood wrote: »
    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.
    So I assume by this logic that every single independent female that went for election got elected?
    busyliving wrote: »
    Fcuking twats:D
    Agreed. They fight discrimination by discriminating against someone else, and then wonder why they fail :rolleyes:

    =-=

    If they had only invited Paula, Tina, Deirdre, Sinead, Barbera, etc, it wouldn't have made headlines. As they banned all men, it has made headlines.


  • Options
    #105
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    Zulu wrote: »
    And do you believe that having exclusive, sexist meetings are a constructive why of addressing this issue?

    Or are you happy to denounce them as petty and pathetic?

    Actually, I already said I thought it was silly to be exclusionary. With that said, yeah, I believe that they can be constructive too even with no men allowed.


  • Options
    #106
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    the_syco wrote: »
    Although it's not nice when it happens, it is unacceptable for an elected representative to ban other elected representatives based on their sex.


    So you are saying that men cannot represent women

    No, I'm not saying that. The rest of your post, you're really just being willfully obtuse so you know. Be happy with that, it will serve you well in life.


  • Options
    #107
    py2006
    Registered Users Posts: 9,847 ✭✭✭py2006


    Dudess wrote: »
    Not saying it's right, and it is hypocritical, but I find the expectations that all feminists should be giving out about discrimination against men to be kinda obtuse. Would men's rights activists be expected to voice objection to discrimination against women? And they can push the equality line too, to be fair.

    I just think it would look less hostile and more constructive if those angered by inequalities and obstacles faced by men concentrated on making this heard, instead of pondering why feminists aren't doing it.

    In fairness, certain women complain about inequalities whether warranted or not and they express it as though the only occurrences in society of discrimination, inequality and sexism is when it is directed towards women.

    The reality is that both sexes are victims of all of the above and these women need to promote equality in the true sense of the word and not just where it suits them.


  • Options
    #108
    Eoin
    Registered Users Posts: 21,253 ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    Dudess wrote: »
    Not saying it's right, and it is hypocritical, but I find the expectations that all feminists should be giving out about discrimination against men to be kinda obtuse. Would men's rights activists be expected to voice objection to discrimination against women? And they can push the equality line too, to be fair.

    I just think it would look less hostile and more constructive if those angered by inequalities and obstacles faced by men concentrated on making this heard, instead of pondering why feminists aren't doing it.

    We shouldn't have to ponder why people we have voted for are excluding a certain group of their own colleagues from meetings that could lead to a change to how everyone gets to vote for.

    Feminists shouldn't have to advocate for men's rights; that's fair enough. But I expect that the people who represent me will be a little less one eyed about it.


  • Options
    #109
    FetchTheGin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭FetchTheGin


    Dudess wrote: »
    Not saying it's right, and it is hypocritical, but I find the expectations that all feminists should be giving out about discrimination against men to be kinda obtuse. Would men's rights activists be expected to voice objection to discrimination against women? And they can push the equality line too, to be fair.

    I just think it would look less hostile and more constructive if those angered by inequalities and obstacles faced by men concentrated on making this heard, instead of pondering why feminists aren't doing it.

    Disagree with this.

    The purpose of feminism was to create equality in major areas of society such as jobs etc, it was not set up to push some anti-man agenda or completely dismiss the male role entirely.

    If a mens right group got anywhere near as much bad influence as feminism in certain sections of society and whose sole purpose was to exclude women from meetings, be them political or otherwise, I would object to that too.


  • Options
    #110
    James Jones
    Registered Users Posts: 534 ✭✭✭James Jones


    This meeting was wrong for a number of reasons:
    1. Public representatives are elected on policy, not gender. To prove the point, does anyone here think that a women who normally votes Fine Gael should vote for a female Fianna Fail candidate if Fine Gael put forward a male candidate?
    2. Should these women not be taking example from an actual minority, i.e. our Gay TD's John Lyons and Dominic Hannigan HERE?
    3. Do these two TD's represent all their constituents or just the gay ones?
    4. Imagine how well treated separated fathers would be if male TD's who were separated felt it right that they would represent separated fathers? Then they would have had a Taoiseach for 11 years.


Advertisement