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

WoolyJumper

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.

That's actually a fair point, i dont know if its necessary to put it in the constitution, especially if the aim is to eventually remove the quota when things "even out"

WoolyJumper

DanDan6592 wrote: »

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.

why would it limit your options? Because there are some women instead of men? If anything it will add a few new faces to the ballets and give us some new options

p1akuw47h5r3it

WoolyJumper wrote: »

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.

Maybe women simply don't want to go into Politics. What exactly do you think it is that is stopping women going into politics? Are there any barriers to entry that don't apply to men?

I understand the point you're making about creed and race etc i don't think there should be quotas for that

Why not? This might be a controversial thing to say and you might disagree but minority groups would bring a different perspective and dynamic to politics which is something we really need at the moment.

p1akuw47h5r3it

WoolyJumper wrote: »

why would it limit your options? Because there are some women instead of men? If anything it will add a few new faces to the ballets and give us some new options

SOrry for the double post only saw this after I posted above!

Because a quota of woman and/or men would have to be met which would mean that certain candidates (who could be a better option) would not be on the ballot due to their gender.

WoolyJumper

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Maybe women simply don't want to go into Politics. What exactly do you think it is that is stopping women going into politics? Are there any barriers to entry that don't apply to men?



Why not? This might be a controversial thing to say and you might disagree but minority groups would bring a different perspective and dynamic to politics which is something we really need at the moment.

Sure there are no outright reasons..but there are probably historical and sociological barriers that these quotas might help to remove

First of all women are not a minority in this country (in fact just slightly the majority) and like i said if 50% of people in the country were black and only had 15 % rep in the dail (at its highest) i'd say there was something wrong there

p1akuw47h5r3it

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Sure there are no outright reasons..but there are probably historical and sociological barriers that these quotas might help to remove

First of all women are not a minority in this country (in fact just slightly the majority) and like i said if 50% of people in the country were black and only had 15 % rep in the dail (at its highest) i'd say there was something wrong there

Ok and so you would bring in a quota based on race? Do you really think that would be acceptable, to possibly deny a person a minsterial position due to the colour of their skin?

But what sociological and historic reasons? I'm not trying to be pedantic just generally curious.

Scofflaw

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?

Inappropriately so, I think.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Zulu

WoolyJumper wrote: »

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...

This is the LIE that I hate.

What does "under" represented mean anyway? "Inadequately represented" according to a dictionary. So, your position is that men are inadequate are representing women. Why? Why can't I, a man, represent a woman? I take it you don't really believe that my micky gets in the way, so what is it? do you simply believe that men aren't as good as women?

Worse still, your position is that a man is inadequately representing my wife. Who are you to determine the value of her vote?

The simple fact is that men can represent women as women can represent men. If you want to encourage women into politics encourage the women you know to step up to the plate. AND if a political party blocks a legitimate female candidate, then come back to me & I'll fight tooth and nail with you to ensure she's given an EQUAL opportunity.

But I will not tolerate a biased opportunity; I will not tolerate a discrimination based on gender. It's wrong, and we all know it.

P_1

I don't think that gender quotas would work with our current system of elections. If we changed to the German system, for example, then it could work.

That's coming from a practical perspective.

Annasopra

P_1 wrote: »

I don't think that gender quotas would work with our current system of elections. If we changed to the German system, for example, then it could work.

That's coming from a practical perspective.

We will have gender quotas in legislation from the next general election. A minimum of 30% of candidates who are nominated by political parties to contest the election have to be female or male.

P_1

mango salsa wrote: »

We will have gender quotas in legislation from the next general election. A minimum of 30% of candidates who are nominated by political parties to contest the election have to be female or male.

Didn't actually realise that. That, combined with our largely personality voting method for electing politicians is a recipe for disaster IMO

WoolyJumper

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Ok and so you would bring in a quota based on race? Do you really think that would be acceptable, to possibly deny a person a minsterial position due to the colour of their skin?

But what sociological and historic reasons? I'm not trying to be pedantic just generally curious.

If that were the case then i think they should be considered, yeah.

Well im no expert in sociology or history but quickly off the top of my head, women having to leave there jobs in the civil service when they got married and historically womens position in society in general can create a sociological barrier. Also politics in Ireland isn't very female (or family)friendly at the moment, with the hours and traveling up to Dublin so by bringing women into the dail it might make it more female (and family) friendly and therefore encourage more women.

In saying all this, gender quotas is just one solution (that has worked for Sweden) there maybe other other solutions but i do think there is a problem when you look at the amount of women in the dail. I think its too simple to say women just don't want to be politicians...you have to question why that is

MagicSean

mango salsa wrote: »

We will have gender quotas in legislation from the next general election. A minimum of 30% of candidates who are nominated by political parties to contest the election have to be female or male.

The better solution would be to ban political parties altogether. They are the ones that control entry in to politics for the most part. They control votes in the Dáil and senate and punish members for not voting as told. Their whole existence is an afront to the democratic process.

crockholm

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Sure there are no outright reasons..but there are probably historical and sociological barriers that these quotas might help to remove

First of all women are not a minority in this country (in fact just slightly the majority) and like i said if 50% of people in the country were black and only had 15 % rep in the dail (at its highest) i'd say there was something wrong there

One may ask about the potential for gerrymandering,but as I don't see women being corralled into certain area's,this point is invalid.Giving me a 50 metre head start on usain bolt in a 100m sprint may also be good for equality as only 1 caucasian has run 100m sub 10 seconds,but it makes the event farcical.This is the epitome of quango-inspired politicking, and detremental to our democracy.

WoolyJumper

Zulu wrote: »

This is the LIE that I hate.

What does "under" represented mean anyway? "Inadequately represented" according to a dictionary. So, your position is that men are inadequate are representing women. Why? Why can't I, a man, represent a woman? I take it you don't really believe that my micky gets in the way, so what is it? do you simply believe that men aren't as good as women?

Worse still, your position is that a man is inadequately representing my wife. Who are you to determine the value of her vote?

The simple fact is that men can represent women as women can represent men. If you want to encourage women into politics encourage the women you know to step up to the plate. AND if a political party blocks a legitimate female candidate, then come back to me & I'll fight tooth and nail with you to ensure she's given an EQUAL opportunity.

But I will not tolerate a biased opportunity; I will not tolerate a discrimination based on gender. It's wrong, and we all know it.

No, this is not what im saying at all. When 50% of the population are women yet so few appear on the ballet paper im saying there is something wrong there. We dont pick who ends up on the ballet but when women appear on it we tend to vote for them.

I said nothing about men not being able to represent women. In saying that we dont have things like state childcare, and then there is the abortion mess. Women aren't always well represented by men.

Annasopra

Zulu wrote: »

This is the LIE that I hate.

What does "under" represented mean anyway? "Inadequately represented" according to a dictionary. So, your position is that men are inadequate are representing women. Why? Why can't I, a man, represent a woman? I take it you don't really believe that my micky gets in the way, so what is it? do you simply believe that men aren't as good as women?

Worse still, your position is that a man is inadequately representing my wife. Who are you to determine the value of her vote?

The simple fact is that men can represent women as women can represent men. If you want to encourage women into politics encourage the women you know to step up to the plate. AND if a political party blocks a legitimate female candidate, then come back to me & I'll fight tooth and nail with you to ensure she's given an EQUAL opportunity.

But I will not tolerate a biased opportunity; I will not tolerate a discrimination based on gender. It's wrong, and we all know it.

Firstly

Please do not state "we all know it's wrong". Many people agree with quotas. Your view is not everyones view so stop claiming it is.

If we think back to the Ireland of the 1970s for a minute; marital rape was legal, children born outside of marriage were stigmatised with illegitamacy, married women were barred from working in the civil service, leaving cert papers were colour coded on your gender, condoms were illegal, gay male sex was illegal and divorce was illegal.

The legislature entirely made up of men massively resisted most of those changes. Of course there were a few notable exceptions; Noel Browne, Jim Kemmy, Michael D, Patrick Hillery (as EU commissioner) - This changed because of feminist social movements but also it changed with the entry of more women into politics in the 1980s - women such as Nuala Fennell, Monica Barnes, Gemma Hussey, Eileen Desmond, Maire Geoghegan Quinn and Mary Robinson made a big impact on these social issues and improved the lives of many women, children and men too.

On a local level I was recently talking to some county councillors about the types of queries that they get. Their experience is that female councillors tend to get queries such as community facilities, childcare, healthcare whereas male councillors tended to get more queries about business and planning.

crockholm

Is using public service forced retirements really pertinent to the thread? We can say many things about the modus operandii of Ireland ca.1980 that mean nothing today.
"female friendly" and "family friendly"? I'm not going to take the bait on those plums.
As for Sweden, please tell us where are all the women at the top are? I see Reinfeldt and Borg, socialists are run by an ex-union man, SD run by a man. the highest profile female probably being Annie Lööf, the leader of the centre party with a whopping 4% of the electorate

P_1

Seems this debate is getting fairly heated between 2 sides. I wonder if it'd be worthwhile if participants were to disclose if they are male/female, feminist/anti-feminist/can't we all just get along. Because I see the potential for some trench warfare here.

WoolyJumper

crockholm wrote: »

Is using public service forced retirements really pertinent to the thread? We can say many things about the modus operandii of Ireland ca.1980 that mean nothing today.
"female friendly" and "family friendly"? I'm not going to take the bait on those plums.
As for Sweden, please tell us where are all the women at the top are? I see Reinfeldt and Borg, socialists are run by an ex-union man, SD run by a man. the highest profile female probably being Annie Lööf, the leader of the centre party with a whopping 4% of the electorate

Im not baiting, i was answering someone else's question. Like i said im no expert but there can be an argument made that politics in Ireland in not very female or family friendly....you're entitled to disagree.

I just did a quick google and in 2011, 45% of the Swedish parliament were made up of women so in that sense it was successful. This isn't about women being on top, its about getting more women in politics.

Silentcorner

I would have a problem with gender quotas on the ballot paper, it will not increase the standard of candidate, in fact the kind of woman who would excel in politics would also be the kind of woman who would be most offended by gender quotas.

I would have no issue however with allocating political funding (from the exchequer) based on the number of female delegates...I have no idea how that could be implemented

oscarBravo

mango salsa wrote: »

We will have gender quotas in legislation from the next general election.

And that's where such quotas belong. If they have a positive outcome, they can be kept in place. If they appear to be working but with room for improvement, they can be improved by the Oireachtas. If they (for reasons unforeseen) have negative consequences, they can be removed by the Oireachtas.

MagicSean

mango salsa wrote: »

Firstly

Please do not state "we all know it's wrong". Many people agree with quotas. Your view is not everyones view so stop claiming it is.

If we think back to the Ireland of the 1970s for a minute; marital rape was legal, children born outside of marriage were stigmatised with illegitamacy, married women were barred from working in the civil service, leaving cert papers were colour coded on your gender, condoms were illegal, gay male sex was illegal and divorce was illegal.

The legislature entirely made up of men massively resisted most of those changes. Of course there were a few notable exceptions; Noel Browne, Jim Kemmy, Michael D, Patrick Hillery (as EU commissioner) - This changed because of feminist social movements but also it changed with the entry of more women into politics in the 1980s - women such as Nuala Fennell, Monica Barnes, Gemma Hussey, Eileen Desmond, Maire Geoghegan Quinn and Mary Robinson made a big impact on these social issues and improved the lives of many women, children and men too.

On a local level I was recently talking to some county councillors about the types of queries that they get. Their experience is that female councillors tend to get queries such as community facilities, childcare, healthcare whereas male councillors tended to get more queries about business and planning.

Weren't a lot of those issues you mention challenged in the courts by men?

Why does a representative body have to be made up of an equal gender proportion in order to be properly representative. That's an incredibly sexist policy. Can a man not represent the views of a woman or vice versa?

Zulu

mango salsa wrote: »

Firstly

Please do not state "we all know it's wrong". Many people agree with quotas. Your view is not everyones view so stop claiming it is.

You misinterpret. I was saying that we all know "biased opportunity" & sexual discrimination is wrong. But perhaps we don't. Perhaps some here agree with sexual discrimination. If thats the case it's a shame. I would really have hoped that that kind of historic thinking belonged in the past.

If we think back to the Ireland of the 1970s for a minute; marital rape was legal, ....

...and people were discriminated against because of their gender.

Victor

Perhaps don't think of it as 'discrimination' or 'positive discrimination', but 'correcting existing discrimination'.

Zulu wrote: »

Worse still, your position is that a man is inadequately representing my wife. Who are you to determine the value of her vote?

If I can suggest that it sounds like you are undervaluing some peoples' votes by that comment.

The simple fact is that men can represent women as women can represent men.

But do they do so adequately?

If you want to encourage women into politics encourage the women you know to step up to the plate.

What better way to do so by providing role models?

Zulu

Victor wrote: »

Perhaps don't think of it as 'discrimination' or 'positive discrimination', but 'correcting existing discrimination'.

(At best) Correcting discrimination with more discrimination isn't something I can happily accept.
(At worst) Correcting perceived discrimination with actual discrimination is a terrible idea.

I struggle to comprehend why this is difficult to understand. I suspect that this is understood but deeded acceptable. An "acceptable causality" in the pursuit of a "fairer society for women". Sadly there seems to be little room in this new society for democracy.

If I can suggest that it sounds like you are undervaluing some peoples' votes by that comment.

I fail to see how. I'm not suggesting that anyone's vote was for a person who can't represent them; I'm not second guessing anyone else's vote.

But do they do so adequately?

I see no evidence to suggest that they don't.

What better way to do so by providing role models?

Depends on who the role model is. A token role model could do more harm than good.

A genuine role model however, is an inspiration.


And finally, I'm not undervaluing gender specific role models, but wouldn't you rather work towards a future society where role models weren't gender specific? Wouldn't it be a marvelous future society where the gender of a boys or girls role model wasn't a primary concern?

gizmo555

mango salsa wrote: »

We will have gender quotas in legislation from the next general election. A minimum of 30% of candidates who are nominated by political parties to contest the election have to be female or male.

Not quite. It's not compulsory, but parties which don't reach these minimum percentages won't receive state funding.

It remains to be seen where parties will find the needed women candidates.Even Labour, which has been pushing hardest for this change and has had it as party policy for some time didn't reach it in the 2011 election - they had 26.5% women candidates. (And we had the disgraceful attempt to squeeze out Anne Ferris as a candidate in Wicklow in favour of the son of retiring TD Liz McManus . . .)

p1akuw47h5r3it

Victor wrote: »

Perhaps don't think of it as 'discrimination' or 'positive discrimination', but 'correcting existing discrimination'.If I can suggest that it sounds like you are undervaluing some peoples' votes by that comment.

But do they do so adequately?

What better way to do so by providing role models?

By what... More descrimination? Ye, great idea!

Victor

MagicSean wrote: »

Why does a representative body have to be made up of an equal gender proportion in order to be properly representative.

Not equal proportions, but (somewhat) balanced proportions.

Can a man not represent the views of a woman or vice versa?

Do men get told 'Oh, this is a girl's school, we don't do higher level maths'.

MagicSean

Victor wrote: »

Not equal proportions, but (somewhat) balanced proportions.


Do men get told 'Oh, this is a girl's school, we don't do higher level maths'.

No. But that hardly means they are incapable of representing someone who does get told.

Annasopra

MagicSean wrote: »

Weren't a lot of those issues you mention challenged in the courts by men?

Why does a representative body have to be made up of an equal gender proportion in order to be properly representative. That's an incredibly sexist policy. Can a man not represent the views of a woman or vice versa?

Some of them were challenged by men. Most of them were not. I firmly believe that if more women in power in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s a lot of those changes would have happened much much sooner.

To be honest in a broad range of policy areas for example policy on domestic violence, childcare, sexual violence, reproductive healthcare I would much rather have a parliament that has some more voices of women than the present parliament.

Of course a man can represent the views of women but he can never fully understand the experiences of female rape, abortion, pregnancy, childbirth, female breast cancer etc