Would Ireland Be Better Run By Women?

Morag

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0EDvAxdmBY

Would Ireland Be Better Run By Women?

The national women's council asked this question in the light of the findings of the Mahon tribunal.

What do you think?
Would it be different?
Would it be better?

The Big Red Button

The leaders of the country should be voted in based on ability, skills and experience. Their gender should have absolutely nothing to do with it.

To be honest, I think that questions like this are very damaging to feminism and the pursuit of equal opportunities.

It would depend entirely on the women involved and their abilities.

And since women don't seem to want to run the country... *shrug*

WindSock

Every fvck up would be attributed to the fact that they are a woman and not because they are inept. Could you imagine. 'ok girlies, you had your chance and you proved you can't now give the important jobs back to the men and run along'

Morag

Woah

HAve any of you looked at the clip?

ok it's not about booting all men out of politics, the question is about if there were more women involved with running the country would it be different, would it be better?

It is to get people to think and to get more women thinking about it and if they would consider getting more involved.

Fluorescence

That rather depends. If it were women like Mary Robinson or McAleese then yes, it would be wonderful. But our gender has its corrupt and inept members too.

Gender really shouldn't be a factor. Passion and ability should be all that matters.

can't watch it right now

i just think we have so many incompetents and corrupt people we should be appealing to the population at large to see if they can make a difference, not half of it

Morag

chatterpillar wrote: »

The leaders of the country should be voted in based on ability, skills and experience. Their gender should have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Hard to hone and develope skills when you don't get the chance to do so and it's hard to get experience when it's seen a a man's role and a male culture and not a place for women or where women are not taken seriously.

chatterpillar wrote: »

To be honest, I think that questions like this are very damaging to feminism and the pursuit of equal opportunities.

I think questions like this have to be asked to get people to think and consider and figure out what the norm is and how things may be and how to make changes happen.

Fluorescence

Sharrow wrote: »

Woah

HAve any of you looked at the clip?

ok it's not about booting all men out of politics, the question is about if there were more women involved with running the country would it be different, would it be better?

It is to get people to think and to get more women thinking about it and if they would consider getting more involved.

That bloke who said we need both men AND women in the Dáil was spot on, tbh.

krudler

its kind of a catch 22 isnt it, less women seem to be interested in getting into politics and the ones who do face not being taken seriously, even though we've had two female presidents as the last leaders (well as much of a leader as an Irish president can be) of the country. politics in general is an old boys club, so I'd imagine young men who want to make positive changes face obstacles too, young women even more so. there are incompent female politicians (Joan Burton, shuddder)

Morag

fluorescence wrote: »

That bloke who said we need both men AND women in the Dáil was spot on, tbh.

I agree but this is a thought experiment,

Thought experiments are devices of the imagination used to investigate the nature of things. Thought experimenting often takes place when the method of variation is employed in entertaining imaginative suppositions. They are used for diverse reasons in a variety of areas, including economics, history, mathematics, philosophy, and physics. Most often thought experiments are communicated in narrative form, sometimes through media like a diagram.

Our country has been predominately run by men for the entirety of it's existence.
If the opposite had of been true, if it had of been run by women
would Ireland be different?

noddyone2

What's so good about McAleese? Mother of sorrows face.

Morag

noddyone2 wrote: »

What's so good about McAleese? Mother of sorrows face.

Oh look a post pointing out that her appearance should be the most important thing about a female politician or head of state. That didn't take long :rolleyes:

Knasher

Sharrow wrote: »

I think questions like this have to be asked to get people to think and consider and figure out what the norm is and how things may be and how to make changes happen.

To my eyes it makes it look like they are trying to promote matriarchy instead of gender equality. Also if it is done in light of the Mahon tribunal, it is especially distasteful as it looks as if they are tying to stereotype their gender as the cause of the politicians corruption.

I'm sure if the roles were reversed there would be people trying to capitalize in the same way and it would be equally as distasteful. I would have just expected a group whose goals I had thought were promoting gender equality to know better.

Just my two cents on the matter.

The Big Red Button

Sharrow wrote: »

noddyone2 wrote: »

What's so good about McAleese? Mother of sorrows face.

Oh look a post pointing out that her appearance should be the most important thing about a female politician or head of state. That didn't take long :rolleyes:

To be fair that's not necessarily just because she's female - I have heard PLENTY of comments on our current President's physical appearance, not to mention that of Brian Cowen, Bertie Ahern etc.

Morag

Knasher wrote: »

To my eyes it makes it look like they are trying to promote matriarchy instead of gender equality. Also if it is done in light of the Mahon tribunal, it is especially distasteful as it looks as if they are tying to stereotype their gender as the cause of the politicians corruption.

I'm sure if the roles were reversed there would be people trying to capitalize in the same way and it would be equally as distasteful. I would have just expected a group whose goals I had thought were promoting gender equality to know better.

Just my two cents on the matter.

Imagination is one of the most powerful things we have as humans,
we can imagine our lives, ourselves and the world as being different to how they are. Having first done that we can then set about changing those things.

But first we have to take the time to pose the questions and imagine how thing might be different and then reject or adopt the ideas which come from that to make our lives, ourselves and our world better.

It is not about trying to promote or create matriarchy at all is is saying would things be different, would any of those differences make life better?

Knasher

It's not the thought experiment itself I object to. It's the fact that the people asking the question have an agenda, getting more women in politics, and while I support their goal, it just rubs me the wrong way to see them going around and asking people if they should be in charge altogether. The motivation for the timing also feels manipulative.

If the same question were asked by a more neutral party or at a more neutral time or even just a more neutral question "Would Ireland be better if there were equal numbers of women in politics", then I really wouldn't have a problem. As it stands it just hits me the wrong way, which is unfortunate for a cause I already support, but perhaps I'm just an outlier in this.

I am a friend

Sharrow wrote: »

Would Ireland Be Better Run By Women?

2 words -'Mary COughlan' so not on your nelly.

Catari Jaguar

Mary Harney had plenty of scandals.

“Health Minister Mary Harney and her husband Brian Geoghegan ran up a bill of nearly €65,000 on hotels, limousine hire and accommodation in the space of just three years. That figure does not include the massive bill for the Government jet, which Harney used on almost every occasion she travelled abroad and which cost the taxpayer more than €735,000.” – Sunday Tribune, October 2009.

Stheno

Sharrow wrote: »

Woah

HAve any of you looked at the clip?

ok it's not about booting all men out of politics, the question is about if there were more women involved with running the country would it be different, would it be better?

It is to get people to think and to get more women thinking about it and if they would consider getting more involved.

I've not looked at the clip, but suspect it is very similiar to a series of articles I followed last year in relation to a couple of women in Iceland who worked in financial services, and used the opportunity of the crisis there to turn the situation around very very successfully, if people are interested I'll hunt it own, they attributed some of their success to a "female approach"

I am a friend wrote: »

2 words -'Mary COughlan' so not on your nelly.

cherub rock wrote: »

Mary Harney had plenty of scandals.

I'm not a fan of politicians but there are plenty of female politicians I admire for what they have done.

The two Marys who have been president, Robinson for me is the first president to be involved truly in international affairs after her presidency, and I do think McAleese broke the barrier that despite being a northerner you could be president.

Mary O'Rourke appeared a capable politician and not one stained by the Mahon tribunal, and certainly many at European level have had an impact, Avril Doyle, Mary Banotti another

Having worked for 14 years (barring six months on a contract in an exclusively female team), in a 90% male dominated environment, I've come to enjoy being considered an equal in a very male environment, whilst having the freedom to be able to express things men may not, but propose risky initiatives they may not. I suppose in a nutshell I enjoy the different perspectives.

I'm currently in a small team, and the most senior woman in that team, and I do believe practices have changed as result of my being there, and do feel, and have been told that that is the case.

So I'd say no, women running the country is not ideal or better, however I do believe that women who are very confident and have a strong sense of what is right can very strongly influence events in which they are involved, and bring a softer side to this when considering change etc.

However, I'm frequently the lead in teaching classes that are exlusively male what I do, and while I'd love to be involved in politics, wouldn't ever due to the unnecessary intrusiveness into personal lives here imo.

It's very similiar to the US system, far more so than most European countries.

Am I good at what I do? Apparently so according to my boss. Could I be a good politician? I certainly think so, I've a lot of the skills. Would I become one? No, both on the basis that this country struggles not to evaluate candidates on pure strength and weaknesses, but looks at every available skeleton and exploits it. Would I enjoy being a politician? Yes apart from kissing crying babies (joke) Would I enjoy being part of a group empowered to affect positive change in a country and potentially being someone who has to manage that change and communicate it effectively? Yes absolutely, my entire career has been built on that, I thoroughly enjoy it and years later in the case of some huge projects I reflect with pride on what I've done, never taken a bribe etc

Will I ever get involved in politics? I was very strongly involved in politics, and was put off hugely in college (so involved I was in the Dail regularly, and campaigned a lot) by the very pariochial system that prevails

And that's saying something given I work in IT.

I work as an organisational change trainer, and regularly use recent and past political events as exampes in my work, so it's not as if I am unaware, just unwilling to get involved.

And that's the shame of it, a system that discourages people to get involved be they male or female, but from being involved in politics in college, it's far more difficult for women unless they conform to a certain type, I'm considered a leader in my field internationally, but wild horses wouldn't get me involved in Irish politics.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

TBH I reckon there might be a difference of approach in some matters, but overall there would likely be little difference overall. You'd have some very good, some very bad and most somewhere in the middle of "meh". Pretty much like our current system. It seems that regardless of gender those who seek public office are often the last people qualified for the task or downright wrong for it. There's also an element of a need for public gratification. Kinda like failed performers. That has been my experience in my dealings over the years with various members female and male of our political class over the years anyway.

Logical Fallacy

Sharrow wrote: »

Woah

HAve any of you looked at the clip?

ok it's not about booting all men out of politics, the question is about if there were more women involved with running the country would it be different, would it be better?

It is to get people to think and to get more women thinking about it and if they would consider getting more involved.

I think that gender has little to do with political leaning I have to say. Religion still seems to be a pretty strong factor for a lot of people, as well as economic circumstances.

I'd like to see more people in generally becoming more deeply interested in politics rather than just the general immersion, suit yourself style that a lot of people adopt.

More deep thought and examination of issues and proper debate around them.

I have no real idea on how you would get more women involved in politics...but I doubt things would get any better just because they were. Women are not particularly enlightened simply because of their gender...it would be more about getting the right people involved and then you might see some positive change.

To be honest, i don't think being a bloke means it easier to get ahead in politics, I think if you are bloke who Dad was "that" bloke you are sorted. Nepotism casts a far longer shadow over Irish politics in my opinion.

LostinBlanch

The first two names that jumped to mind when I saw the clip were Mary Harney and Mary Coughlan. Mary O'Rourke isn't much better IMO. You know she's the one responsible for the privation of Telecom Eireann which was later renamed Eircom. At the time people were saying that she should unbundle the local loop to allow higher broadband speeds, she didn't, and that's the reason that you've got such slow broadband compared to other countries.

I don't care what gender our politicians are as long as they are clean, competent and do their jobs as best they can for the benefit of all members of society and not for any particular group or gender.

Wibbs wrote: »

It seems that regardless of gender those who seek public office are often the last people qualified for the task or downright wrong for it. There's also an element of a need for public gratification. Kinda like failed performers. That has been my experience in my dealings over the years with various members female and male of our political class over the years anyway.

THat's why politics is also known as Rock and Roll for ugly people. :cool:

livinsane

Irrespective of gender, the country should be run by people at the top of their field. The government should be head hunting talented people. It should be considered an honour to work for your country, rather than a negative.

People from families with longstanding ties to political parties should be distrusted.

People who want to run the country should be distrusted.

But just to comment on the gender issue, in any job I've worked, women have been far superior in a top role than the men. I can honestly say that any male boss I have worked under, including now, have been very amicable but embarrasingly irresponsible at times and more concerned with passing the buck than actually working. They are also more concerned with being liked, than doing a good job. The women have been stricter and colder, but efficient and impartial when making decisions. The men have been more approachable than the women by a mile though.

You need a mix. Both genders have inherent qualities.

saa

livinsane wrote: »

Both genders have inherent qualities.

But both genders can have those feminine or butch (by association) qualities, I think the issue is less to do with the abilities defined by gender but the treatment of someone does differ and there is an issue with the old boys club kind of thing but then again there was a female only business conference the other day so that's not that great either from business just kind of removes themselves as female business leaders rather than business leaders.

livinsane

saa wrote: »

But both genders can have those feminine or butch (by association) qualities, I think the issue is less to do with the abilities defined by gender but the treatment of someone does differ and there is an issue with the old boys club kind of thing but then again there was a female only business conference the other day so that's not that great either from business just kind of removes themselves as female business leaders rather than business leaders.

When I made the point that both genders have inherrent qualities, I wasn't taking about behavioural traits necessarily.

For example, men have bass in their voice. Women do not. Might sound meaningless but it can have a surprising effect on the receiver and can be an advantageous quality.

Have seen it countless times at work, either face to face with the public or over the phone, people seem to respond better and respect a male voice more than a female. Something about the depth in it. But it's a biological trait.

Hotblack Desiato

bluewolf wrote: »

It would depend entirely on the women involved and their abilities.

And since women don't seem to want to run the country... *shrug*

We hear all the time about the barriers women face, etc.. as if it's easy for a man not well-connected in a major political party to get elected to the Dail.

There are no barriers to standing for the Seanad university panels.

http://www.nui.ie/elections/candidatesFAQ.asp

No deposit, no requirement to be in a party (being too closely aligned to a party is seen as a disadvantage, actually). An Post will mail your leaflet to every NUI or TCD graduate for free. You'd think all of the women being shut out of politics by 'The Man' would leap at the chance. It's not as if the sitting hours of the Seanad are onerous, either. And you are not even required to be a graduate of either university (although you must have ten graduates nominate you, but how hard is that?)

What happened...

http://www.tcd.ie/Communications/news/pressreleases/pressRelease.php?headerID=1711&pressReleaseArchive=2011

TCD - 20 candidates, 5 of whom were women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_University_of_Ireland_(constituency)#2011_election

NUI - 27 candidates, 4 of whom were women.


Could it be that the reason there are fewer women in politics is that, shock horror, women are simply less interested in putting themselves forward for office, even when it would cost them little or nothing financially, no party membership is required (and no party patriarchy can be blamed), and no knocking on doors is involved?

Wibbs

livinsane wrote: »

people seem to respond better and respect a male voice more than a female. Something about the depth in it. But it's a biological trait.

Yet the computer voices on fighter planes and the like are female because they found men at least respond better to it and obey more reliably. It might well be 6 of one and a half dozen of the other.

K-9

livinsane wrote: »

When I made the point that both genders have inherrent qualities, I wasn't taking about behavioural traits necessarily.

For example, men have bass in their voice. Women do not. Might sound meaningless but it can have a surprising effect on the receiver and can be an advantageous quality.

Have seen it countless times at work, either face to face with the public or over the phone, people seem to respond better and respect a male voice more than a female. Something about the depth in it. But it's a biological trait.

But isn't that more a societal expectation. Reminds me of QI, people who ring up call centres in England tend to be abusive depending on the accent, a Geordie or Scouse accent you'll just get more abuse and when referred to management they react better with a posh Southern accent or an upper class one, like Stephen Fry's. I think it is more kind of a class thing or peoples expectations or some would say, prejudices!

Stheno

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hence my saying she appeared capable as opposed to admirable, being alone in that group for many years

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH I reckon there might be a difference of approach in some matters, but overall there would likely be little difference overall. You'd have some very good, some very bad and most somewhere in the middle of "meh". Pretty much like our current system. It seems that regardless of gender those who seek public office are often the last people qualified for the task or downright wrong for it. There's also an element of a need for public gratification. Kinda like failed performers. That has been my experience in my dealings over the years with various members female and male of our political class over the years anyway.

Kinda like project managers? (Joke)

However the big difference for me would be the different perspectives that might come into it, but my point below might negate that

livinsane wrote: »

Irrespective of gender, the country should be run by people at the top of their field. The government should be head hunting talented people. It should be considered an honour to work for your country, rather than a negative.

Have you ever read Tom Clancy? In one of his books he had the incumbant president adopt such an approach, but only approached candidates with a known people/soft side complimenting their ability to achieve.

I'd never want Micheal O'Leary running the country tbh.
Ministers imo oversee the running, but it's done by the civil servants.

But just to comment on the gender issue, in any job I've worked, women have been far superior in a top role than the men. I can honestly say that any male boss I have worked under, including now, have been very amicable but embarrasingly irresponsible at times and more concerned with passing the buck than actually working. They are also more concerned with being liked, than doing a good job. The women have been stricter and colder, but efficient and impartial when making decisions. The men have been more approachable than the women by a mile though.

You need a mix. Both genders have inherent qualities

I think you might have described politicians versus non politicians?

livinsane

K-9 wrote: »

But isn't that more a societal expectation. Reminds me of QI, people who ring up call centres in England tend to be abusive depending on the accent, a Geordie or Scouse accent you'll just get more abuse and when referred to management they react better with a posh Southern accent or an upper class one, like Stephen Fry's. I think it is more kind of a class thing or peoples expectations or some would say, prejudices!

Regarding male and female voices, I think of it in terms of a song with or without drums. Lower frequencies make more of an impact on the listener.

But if I was a man, I could have a completely different view. Could be whatever you are attracted to is most appealing. Anyway, think Im going off topic so I'll say no more on voices.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LittleBook

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Exactly. One of the ways to get to the top is to follow the template of those who went before. It's only by breaking the cycle of the type of person (rather than the gender) who tends to go into politics and/or get elected will there be any noteworthy change.

Stheno wrote: »

I'm currently in a small team, and the most senior woman in that team, and I do believe practices have changed as result of my being there, and do feel, and have been told that that is the case.

When you say practices have changed because you're in charge, do you mean you as opposed to the previous boss or a sort of female as opposed to male attitude?

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nail on the head! Anne Widecombe and even Diane Abbott, usually very opinionated and very set in their beliefs. Even Mary O'Rourke, considering her age and her times, would have been outside the norms of society at the time, reminds me of my Mam at times! Very strong willed but can adapt to societal changes, just doesn't phrase it very well! Like the Granny trying to be hip!

Then you had Mary Robinson, campaigned tirelessly for liberalising Ireland but never won a General election. People loved the idea of her as President, just not as a TD, too interested in high flaluting matters!

Avril Doyle and Gemma Hussey in the 80's under Garret seemed to draw ire for not living up to the "soft" stereotypical image of women politicians, the voters showed them the door if I'm correct.

Mary Coughlan is a political dynasty.

Thatcher and Merkel were/are strong, forceful, dominating figures, Spitting Image portrayed the Cabinet very well. I don't know if Ireland generally is willing to accept that type of female politician.

howsyourtusk

My two cents on this is that the system itself is male dominated and any woman who succeeds politically has been co-opted by the corruption and gombeenism that exists within politics. So the commonly used metrics of number of female TDs, number of females on the board of fortune 500 companies, etc, are, I believe, meaningless. Would a woman in charge of Game for example have changed how they disgracefully shut down their Irish stores yesterday leaving their staff without pay or redundancy money? I doubt it.

Only when we have a more equitable society in general will things change. Individuals change nothing.

Stheno

LittleBook wrote: »

When you say practices have changed because you're in charge, do you mean you as opposed to the previous boss or a sort of female as opposed to male attitude?

I'm not in charge per se, but have a significant role in the management team and am the only woman on that team. I think it's a result of a different focus coming into the team which was previously 100% male. Whether or not that is because I'm female cannot be directly attributed, it's more a case of differences in things like attention to detail, and taking an end to end overall view of matters rather than focussing on individual issues. Additionally as it's a small team, it's expanded out the thinking in the team in terms of how we approach things and deal with issues. However given it's a small team, just a small change in dynamics, or expansion has a significant effect, the other people on the team are male, and we are very similiar in how we communicate, and it's very devolved hierarchically and assume that people will do what they are tasked to, and have no problem pointing out what has gone well but equally what has gone wrong.

So I can at best say, as an individual I've made a difference, in a formerly single gender team which is changed by my joining it. Specific examples I can think of are considering the overall impact of individual team member actions and how they impact and reflect on us as an organisation and putting processes in place to deal with that, and to an extent, considering the impact on individuals of changes being made to them. Those could both be attributed to my professional background, and not my gender