[Constitutional Convention][4][16 Feb 2013] Women in politics

RangeR

Greetings. My name is Keith Burke. I'm from Kildare. I was chosen to be one of the 66 citizens of Ireland to represent the wider citizen base in the Constitutional Convention. Some broad information can be found here. It looks mostly accurate

I'm not an expert in law, the constitution or politics. I want to educate myself in the various proposals to better allow myself discuss it on the day. I also want to hear what the wider citizen base think about the proposals.

The Convention are meeting on February 16th and 17th 2013 to discuss the fourth issue put to us.

Increasing the participation of women in politics

I cannot find any references in The Irish Constitution [PDF] relating to this issue. In fact, all references to politics appears to be gender neutral. I'm open to correction.

Request : This thread is not to discuss the Convention itself, please only discuss the pro's and con's of the thread topic.

#ccven - Discussing on the day.

I welcome your comments. Discuss.

P_1

If they're good enough to run they're good enough to run.

IMO positive discrimination can cause more problems than its worth.

Also I'm not sure what can be done with the constitution to encourage more women to run for office? I presume the pay is the same for both male and female public officers?

Iwasfrozen

I wouldn't support positive discrimination for women in politics inevitably means negative discrimination for men. Politicians should be elected based on the merits the electorate feel they would bring to the Dáil. No self respecting professional should sit a seat she acquired because of her gender.

crockholm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I wouldn't support positive discrimination for women in politics inevitably means negative discrimination for men. Politicians should be elected based on the merits the electorate feel they would bring to the Dáil. No self respecting professional should sit a seat she acquired because of her gender.

" no self respecting professional"these are political animals, completely different species.Terrible idea, potential to open a pandora's box of claims by other groups.Stand by your beliefs and let the electorate decide.

The Waltzing Consumer

Not in favour at all. I remember a wonderful comparison was made by someone on the radio in regards this.

They were debating Ivana Bacik and simply asked why did she campaign and argue for gender quotas, hence, giving importance to the presence of both women and men, but campaigned also for same-sex adoptions which gives the impression of hypocrisy as gender should not come into family and is more about a loving home.

So I do feel it is about ability rather then gender for politics and also the electorate should be able to decide themselves without any quota system. If the idiots of Kerry, Dublin, Tipp want to elect the likes of Haely Rae, Aherns and Lowry, well unfortunately, that's their right.

Podgerz

Any quota is a terrible idea and subversive to the idea of a democracy. If i am running for an office as a woman firstly I would want to believe I am a party's candidate as I am the best for the job, not because I am second best but am a woman, and if this passes that will be the issue exactly.

Secondly if I am voting for a candidate; there is no evidence of women being mistreated in this country in the political sector; and of course I am open to the possibility there is, but at the moment it seems the people who run at the minute believe themselves to be the best for the job and put themselves in front of the electorate on this basis.


The notion of a quota is ridiculous and undemocratic

Cookie_Monster

The only way it would work is that if you had (say) a 30% for men AND women, meaning you always have to have at least 30% of each, given that men doninate the area anyway it's unlikely it'll ever be invoked but you never know in the future.

Annasopra

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The only way it would work is that if you had (say) a 30% for men AND women, meaning you always have to have at least 30% of each, given that men doninate the area anyway it's unlikely it'll ever be invoked but you never know in the future.

That is how the quota enacted in law will work at the next general election

Annasopra

I'm personally very in favour of gender quotas but I'm not quite sure whether they should be constitutionally mandated

goose2005

I think that's far too small a step to make. Political leaders are overwhelmingly drawn from a minute fraction of Irish society - publicans, farmers, lawyers, teachers, an occasional trade unionist or doctor; mostly over 50 years of age; many related to previous politicians. Whether we have 1 female primary teacher to 3 male publicans or 1:1 isn't hugely relevant.

But, we already have a quota system: geographic quotas. The law mandates that there must be 7 from Kildare, 50-odd from Dublin, 5 from Mayo etc., so I don't see why gender quotas are much different - arguably a 30-year-old manual labourer from Ennis is better represented by a person of similar experience and background from Dundalk than he would be by a publican and politician's son who happens to live within 20 miles of him.

P_1

TBH rather than having quotas based on what the politicians have between their legs there should be quotas based on what they have inside their heads.

What I mean by that is that in order to run for office somebody must have met a minimal educational standard or have met a minimal business standard.

That IMO would give us a much better class of public official than by basing it purely on gender.

SeanW

Thanks for the thread OP.

I am in agreement with many of the above posters. We should aim for a society that is gender-blind, colour-blind etc. Merit all the way.

I most certainly would oppose writing discrimination into the constitution.

MagicSean

The constitution should be gender neutral when it comes to rights. An increase in women in politics should be brought about throught societal change alone.

Iwasfrozen

MagicSean wrote: »

The constitution should be gender neutral when it comes to rights. An increase in women in politics should be brought about throught societal change alone.

This, there should be no constitutionally mandated difference between men and women.

Zulu

OP, it's a f'in disgrace frankly.

There can be no room for discrimination in an egalitarian society.

How is this concept future proofed? In ten/fifty/a hundred years when/if there are more/equal amounts of candidates, how will this be revoked?

Also, by accepting the logic behind this, you are accepting the premise that men are unable to represent women. And more importantly, you are disregarding the vote of the citizen who elected the representative.

The constitution should value, protect & represent the CITIZEN, not the gender of the citizen.

RangeR

Zulu wrote: »

OP, it's a f'in disgrace frankly.

There can be no room for discrimination in an egalitarian society.

How is this concept future proofed? In ten/fifty/a hundred years when/if there are more/equal amounts of candidates, how will this be revoked?

Also, by accepting the logic behind this, you are accepting the premise that men are unable to represent women. And more importantly, you are disregarding the vote of the citizen who elected the representative.

The constitution should value, protect & represent the CITIZEN, not the gender of the citizen.

I'll take your "You" quote to mean the "Royal You", per say, and not myself personally

Listen, I'm not disagreeing with you. I see no part for ANY discrimination in our document. I still welcome opinion on both sides so an informed decision can be made.

WoolyJumper

I support the idea of gender quotas. I agree it is kind of positive discrimination but sometimes that is necessary. A previous poster said that there needs to be a societal change to encourage women to go in to politics. This could be the very thing to do it. I don't think it is giving women a huge advantage over men, it's just making sure that when it comes to a vote that there are some women on the ballet paper. Which i think will greater represent society and give people more of a diverse candidate list (which is something we need at the moment) This isn't about discriminating against men, its about encouraging women into politics. Also we are not the first country to do this. Sweden did it and it worked, it encouraged more women into politics and eventually the quota was no longer necessary and was removed.

Victor

MagicSean wrote: »

The constitution should be gender neutral when it comes to rights. An increase in women in politics should be brought about throught societal change alone.

A short diversion.

Last year a group called Women On Wheels (WOW) https://www.facebook.com/events/388659181146064/ was formed to promote the position of women with regard to cycling. The current ratio is about 3:1 male:female. Cycling campaigning is even more male dominated.

I was originally reluctant, on Peoples' Front of Judea / Judean People's Front grounds and the risk of the situation reinventing the wheel (and coming up with a confused message), but having heard some of the female cyclists speak about what affects them as 'women involved in cycling' as opposed to ''people involved in cycling', it became clear that there were differences in how certain matters should be dealt with.

So, there are issues that affect women (in particular less well off / less well educated women) that aren't dealt with or are dealt with incorrectly. It would be useful to have a situation where women were heard more and women, especially young women, had more and better role models. A quota may be useful in achieving this.

It may be possible to create such a quota by denying state funding to parties that don't have some diversity of representation. I'm not sure of the constitutionality of that at the moment, so having something in the constitution may be prudent.

Should such quotas extend beyond gender? It would need to be somewhat simple.

Zulu

It's laughable to compare us to Sweden for a start. Especially when you overlook state childcare.

Secondly, why do you think that having over (or less) of any sex makes a difference to the quality of candidate? Do you feel one gender is incapable of representing another? Do you extend this logic to race and creed also? (I assume you wouldn't suggest that black people are incapable of representing white people) Isn't it ironic you don't extend this courtesy to men!

And finally, why is getting "women into politics" more important than democracy to you?

SeanW

WoolyJumper wrote: »

I support the idea of gender quotas. I agree it is kind of positive discrimination but sometimes that is necessary. A previous poster said that there needs to be a societal change to encourage women to go in to politics. This could be the very thing to do it. I don't think it is giving women a huge advantage over men, it's just making sure that when it comes to a vote that there are some women on the ballet paper. Which i think will greater represent society and give people more of a diverse candidate list (which is something we need at the moment) This isn't about discriminating against men, its about encouraging women into politics. Also we are not the first country to do this. Sweden did it and it worked, it encouraged more women into politics and eventually the quota was no longer necessary and was removed.

With all due respect, that's exactly what its about. These things are, by and large, only sought by the hard-feminist-left (i.e. man haters).

You mention Sweden, the same feminist-left dominated country where they started the "Swedish model" on prostitution ... need I say more?

It doesn't matter how many ways you dress up this plan for discrimination as "positive" or "reverse" discrimination. It's still discrimination.

Annasopra

SeanW wrote: »

With all due respect, that's exactly what its about. These things are, by and large, only sought by the hard-feminist-left (i.e. man haters).

You mention Sweden, the same feminist-left dominated country where they started the "Swedish model" on prostitution ... need I say more?

It doesn't matter how many ways you dress up this plan for discrimination as "positive" or "reverse" discrimination. It's still discrimination.

With all due respect. I'm a man. I strongly support gender quotas. I am not a man hater. Your argument that only mysandrists seek quotas is absolute and uttter nonsense.

P_1

As I said already, the only ground that somebody should be discriminated on is ability.

It shouldn't matter who you are, what gender you are, where you're from etc so long as you can do the job and do the job well

SeanW

mango salsa wrote: »

With all due respect. I'm a man. I strongly support gender quotas. I am not a man hater. Your argument that only mysandrists seek quotas is absolute and uttter nonsense.

So you're the equivalent of a Black Klansman. Doesn't change the fact that this comes from a hard-feminist-left agenda, which you seem to have bought hook-line-and-sinker.

RangeR

SeanW wrote: »

So you're the equivalent of a Black Klansman

Guys, let's try not fall under the radar of the mods on the first day of the thread.

oscarBravo

Victor wrote: »

A quota may be useful in achieving this.

But should it be written into the Constitution?

It seems to me there's a worrying trend of legislating through Constitutional provisions, starting with the ridiculous divorce criteria.

hatrickpatrick

The law should be completely gender blind and so should the constitution. And I say this as someone who voted for Mary Mitchell O'Connor in the last election (although based on her performance, in particular relation to internet censorship and regulation, I might seriously reconsider that during the next election).

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

But should it be written into the Constitution?

It seems to me there's a worrying trend of legislating through Constitutional provisions, starting with the ridiculous divorce criteria.

I disagree with a gender quota, but I can see the point of writing it into the constitution - a constitutional provision ties the government's hands, unlike an election which gives them carte blanche to steamroll over their manifestos once they have their seats. Sadly I don't trust our politicians to behave themselves without being forced to do so in manners such as this.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I disagree with a gender quota, but I can see the point of writing it into the constitution - a constitutional provision ties the government's hands, unlike an election which gives them carte blanche to steamroll over their manifestos once they have their seats. Sadly I don't trust our politicians to behave themselves without being forced to do so in manners such as this.

That's an argument in favour of writing all legislation into the Constitution; which is to say a self-defeating argument. Tying the government's hands is a great idea, if you subscribe to the view that the government shouldn't be allowed to govern.

Zulu

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sadly I don't trust our politicians to behave themselves without being forced to do so in manners such as this.

Yeah but would you trust them anymore simply because they had vaginas?
Or, to put it another way, is your trust directly proportional to the amount of mickies?

Is willy density really the root of our ills?


Is farcical really, isn't it?

p1akuw47h5r3it

Zulu wrote: »

Yeah but would you trust them anymore simply because they had vaginas?
Or, to put it another way, is your trust directly proportional to the amount of mickies?

Is willy density really the root of our ills?


Is farcical really, isn't it?

I also think this is farcical. Ireland simply doesn't "do" good politicians. When you go into the booth to vote you are already limited in the candidates that you really want to vote for because frankly most are ****, and you usually end voting for the best of the worst (at least I do).

All this quota will do is further limit the options available to you which as I've said are already pretty limited. I also disprove of positive discrimination as I believe discrimination of any kind is wrong. I certainly wouldn't want this enshrined in the constitution.

WoolyJumper

Zulu wrote: »

It's laughable to compare us to Sweden for a start. Especially when you overlook state childcare.

Secondly, why do you think that having over (or less) of any sex makes a difference to the quality of candidate? Do you feel one gender is incapable of representing another? Do you extend this logic to race and creed also? (I assume you wouldn't suggest that black people are incapable of representing white people) Isn't it ironic you don't extend this courtesy to men!

And finally, why is getting "women into politics" more important than democracy to you?

I am not saying sex makes a difference in the quality of a candidate but when over 50% of the population are women and yet are so under represented on the ballet paper it tells me there is something wrong with the system. Thing is when women are on the ballet they tend to do very well (which means when they are there we tend to vote for them). You mentioned state childcare..I agree this is a problem and perhaps if there were more women in politics it wouldn't be.

This doesn't effect democracy imo. There are already quotas in place (must be a certain number from Dublin, Cork etc) All this is about is making sure there are women on the ballet paper (you don't have to vote for them if they are bad candidates or you disagree with there politics) This might be a controversial thing to say and you might disagree but women bring a different perspective and dynamic to politics which is something we really need at the moment.

I understand the point you're making about creed and race etc i don't think there should be quotas for that but at the same time if 50% of the country were black and only 15 percent of people in the the dail were black i'd have to question why that was and should something be done about it.

15% is the number of women in the dail and thats the highest number on record i believe so things are slowly improving so maybe this is just the little push it needs.

SeanW wrote: »

With all due respect, that's exactly what its about. These things are, by and large, only sought by the hard-feminist-left (i.e. man haters).

You mention Sweden, the same feminist-left dominated country where they started the "Swedish model" on prostitution ... need I say more?

It doesn't matter how many ways you dress up this plan for discrimination as "positive" or "reverse" discrimination. It's still discrimination.

Yeah please elaborate, maybe explain what you mean by "Feminist left" :rolleyes: Really though Sweden seem to be doing pretty well for themselves as a country....not a bad place to look when you want to build a fair society.

Also as far as im aware the same quotas will be in place for men so really its not discrimination.

This isn't about feminism (im a man ) I think its about having a better representation.