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

SeanW

sparkling sea wrote: »

OP would love to be you

Thank f**k you're not, or you would no doubt be trying to crowbar your desire for discrimination into the constitution.

sparkling sea

SeanW wrote: »

Thank f**k you're not, or you would no doubt be trying to crowbar your desire for discrimination into the constitution.

And your answer is based on what - jumping to conclusions and not looking at the actual facts, thats what keeps us in the mess we are in, emotive bull.

The facts speak for themselves, not my views - misogny and discrimnation are already written into the Constitution; I just want equality for all - men and women.

Your reply demonstrates there is still some way to go before the positive dicrimination that exists towards men who enter politics is abandoned. Hopefully women will soon be given an equal footing both in the Constitution and in political parties.

Zulu

So essentially your solution to discrimination is: more discrimination! Genius!!


...emotive bull indeed :rolleyes:

Zombrex

We have never needed legally enforced participation (ie gender quotas) to get minority or under represented groups involved in politics before. We don't require 10% of TDs to be gay, or Polish or from Cork.

It is sexist and patronizing to suggest we need this for women under some misguided notion of helping women. That is even before you get to the undemocratic aspect of quotas.

What we need is to remove barriers to participating and provide wider support and encouragement for women who wish to enter politics, from the local to the national level.

jackofalltrades

sparkling sea wrote:

The candidate selection processes of political parties have been identified as posing a significant obstacle to the political participation of women (due to a prevailing masculine culture, perhaps?). In Fine Gael for example, 42% of the membership is female yet only 15% of candidates fielded in election 2011 were women.

Women made up 8% of independent candidates in the 2011 general election. If the selection processes of political parties was designed to discriminate against women, can you explain why Fine Gael selected women at double the rate when compared to them self selecting themselves by running as an independent candidate?

If you look at the labour party, even though only 4% of their members are women they made up 26% of electoral candidates. Being a women in this party gives you a much higher chance of being selected for being an electoral candidate over a man.

It may take decades before all social, cultural and political barriers preventing equal representation of women are tackled.

And what are these barriers?

We’ll have to wait and see whether the huge majority of middle aged white men in politics will leave the huge majority of not middle aged white men on the party ticket - without legislation for gender quotas, I doubt it!

I really don't see why you are bringing race into this discussion.

You should also have a look at this site; its the global data base of quotas for women - Ireland lags far behind http://www.quotaproject.org/aboutQuotas.cfm

Good to see a list where I'm proud that Ireland lags behind.

MagicSean

sparkling sea wrote: »

OP would love to be you

Article 41 of Bunreacht na hEireann (our Constitution) specifies the sanctity of the family, organised around women’s care and men’s breadwinning and Article 41.2.1 and 41.2.2 state:
1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home (Bunreacht na hEireann).

Some theorists suggest that this is a patronising and discriminatory view and has ensured, to paraphrase Tovey and Share, that in fight for gender recognition, particularly within feminist groups, an emphasis has been placed on women’s distinctiveness, even though they are attempting to eliminate inequalities that form this frame of gender difference. There has been the greatest resistance to claims made based on equal treatment in the labour market and social policy, though Ireland’s membership in the EU has led to recognition of these types of claims.
The pay gap between men and women was 25 per cent when the first European directive on equal pay was adopted in Ireland in 1975 and all these years later, it is still about 15 per cent.

And here is yet another reason we need gender quotas - and why we need to change from the positive constitutional discrimination that has existed for men, to an equal footing for women

The Irish Times – Monday, November 28, 2011 by Roisin Lawless

There were 566 candidates fielded in the last general election. Only 86 were women. The average success rate for both men and women in that election was the same: 29%, which would indicate that there is no bias against female candidates among the Irish electorate.

The candidate selection processes of political parties have been identified as posing a significant obstacle to the political participation of women (due to a prevailing masculine culture, perhaps?). In Fine Gael for example, 42% of the membership is female yet only 15% of candidates fielded in election 2011 were women.

It is now time that political parties field candidates who are reflective of the electorate they will represent. Our public representatives exist to represent the people. Women make up 50% of the population but have never made up more than 14% of TDs.

It may take decades before all social, cultural and political barriers preventing equal representation of women are tackled. Quotas can “kick-start” the process of getting more women elected to the Dáil.

As Garret FitzGerald said, “Our party system, lacking significant female input, is bound to be incomplete and defective”.

RÓISÍN LAWLESS, Áth Buí, Co na Mí.

The information speaks for itself and even though we know the reason for the problem, it still remains a problem that needs a solution. I hope gender quotas go someway towards addressing it.
We’ll have to wait and see whether the huge majority of middle aged white men in politics will leave the huge majority of not middle aged white men on the party ticket - without legislation for gender quotas, I doubt it!
The best indicator of the future actions of policitans is their past actions. In the past they haven't introduced gender quotas and women haven't progressed in political parties, at anywhere near the rate of men, this despite their strong membership of parties. We need gender quotas now - for the short term at least.

You should also have a look at this site; its the global data base of quotas for women - Ireland lags far behind http://www.quotaproject.org/aboutQuotas.cfm

Ah yes the pay gap. Can you actually name a job where a woman would be paid less than a man assuming all other circumstances other than gender are the equal? Is the pay gap not just a temporary situation that exists as women take advantage of the elimination of barriers to equal emplyment? A situation that will inevitably disappear as time goes on.

Also, as to gender quotas. Have you any reason to put forward as to why gender quotas should be enshrined in the constituion instead of just adapted at party level? Have you any justification for directly discriminating against a male applying for the same position as a female?

MagicSean

sparkling sea wrote: »

And your answer is based on what - jumping to conclusions and not looking at the actual facts, thats what keeps us in the mess we are in, emotive bull.

The facts speak for themselves, not my views - misogny and discrimnation are already written into the Constitution; I just want equality for all - men and women.

Your reply demonstrates there is still some way to go before the positive dicrimination that exists towards men who enter politics is abandoned. Hopefully women will soon be given an equal footing both in the Constitution and in political parties.

Could you indicate where this misogny is written into the constitution? Can you state in what way positive discrimination towards men exists?

Basically can you actually explain or back up a single thing you have said?

Zombrex

MagicSean wrote: »

Could you indicate where this misogny is written into the constitution? Can you state in what way positive discrimination towards men exists?

Really? You have read the constitution, right

Article 41.2
In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.


The constitution is sexist and demeaning to woman. But gender quotas are not the answer to that.

MagicSean

Zombrex wrote: »

Really? You have read the constitution, right

Article 41.2
In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.


The constitution is sexist and demeaning to woman. But gender quotas are not the answer to that.

That section is sexist in that it discriminates against men by not recognising their contribution to the home and be not giving them the promise of financial security that is given to women. It gives a positive right to women that is not extended to men.

Zombrex

MagicSean wrote: »

That section is sexist in that it discriminates against men by not recognising their contribution to the home and be not giving them the promise of financial security that is given to women. It gives a positive right to women that is not extended to men.

Having your expected social role defined in law is not a "positive right". Men are not mentioned because men were considered free to do what ever the heck they wanted. Women were to be mothers and home makers.

Saying this is sexist against men is a bit like saying that Indian cast system was classist against rich people because it demanded that only the poor work in the sewers or handled waste. What if the rich wanted to work in the sewers, those poor rich people! :P

sparkling sea

MagicSean wrote: »

That section is sexist in that it discriminates against men by not recognising their contribution to the home and be not giving them the promise of financial security that is given to women. It gives a positive right to women that is not extended to men.

You need to read the Constitution and look at its aspirations.

It was written in a time of gender inequality, that is the backdrop to it and the aim of certain subsections particularly in the area of fundemental rights was to exclude women from politics.

sparkling sea

MagicSean wrote: »

Ah yes the pay gap. Can you actually name a job where a woman would be paid less than a man assuming all other circumstances other than gender are the equal? Is the pay gap not just a temporary situation that exists as women take advantage of the elimination of barriers to equal emplyment? A situation that will inevitably disappear as time goes on.

Also, as to gender quotas. Have you any reason to put forward as to why gender quotas should be enshrined in the constituion instead of just adapted at party level? Have you any justification for directly discriminating against a male applying for the same position as a female?

Your the first person I've ever heard suggest, gender quotas should be enshrined in the Constitution. But any sociology book relating to contempary Ireland will give you a wealth of information as to why positive action is needed in relation to womens participation in politics at governmental level.

sparkling sea

MagicSean wrote: »

Could you indicate where this misogny is written into the constitution? Can you state in what way positive discrimination towards men exists?

Basically can you actually explain or back up a single thing you have said?

Again have you read it? Do you understand the history behind it? Your answers suggest you don't.

Your commenting on something you appear to know very little about; I have given examples that are widely accepted as discriminatory against women. Bunreacht na hEireann is taken to be a gender bais Constitution, partly but not only because of the time it was written. In the main, the gender makeup of all but a few senior office holders back up ever single thing I say. Do you understand that - I don't know?

sparkling sea

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Good to see a list where I'm proud that Ireland lags behind.

No surprised by that, it's kind of obvious from your cherry picked reply.

sparkling sea

OP again congratulations.

I would imagine at the very least both subsections of Art.41 are being considered for amendment, its has been long talked about

There is a wealth of information on this topic, a shed load of independent scientific studies, a dearth of sociologicaly information on the impact this has in society.

People on this site have opinions, as do I - some agree and some differ.

I am sure you will look at the information youself and come to your own opinion on this issue. The best of luck with it.

sparkling sea

Zombrex wrote: »

We have never needed legally enforced participation (ie gender quotas) to get minority or under represented groups involved in politics before. We don't require 10% of TDs to be gay, or Polish or from Cork.

It is sexist and patronizing to suggest we need this for women under some misguided notion of helping women. That is even before you get to the undemocratic aspect of quotas.

What we need is to remove barriers to participating and provide wider support and encouragement for women who wish to enter politics, from the local to the national level.

Perhaps thats why the groups you mentioned are not really represented in politics and are constantly lobbying for change. We do not have an Oireachtas that is representative of our society, this despite the fact that we claim to be a representative democracy. Life in politics limits the knowledge of the majority of politicans who are middle aged or older, well heeled , white male politicans; this means we (both men and women) can’ never ever be represented properly.

Women are not a segment of society, they are part of a set and all other groups are subsets of the main set. A person has to be a man or women to be part of a minority groups The arguement that left handed people, gay people, etc are as entitled to quotas as women is a nonsense thats not to say they should be excluded – but its as ridiculous as saying we should turn the present system on its head and have in and around 88% women and 12 % men – the preception among men would be that they are being undervalued if such a thing happened and that would be true

We've tried your suggestions for the past 40 years, they haven't worked and thats why quotas are being called for. Change has to start somewhere, it makes sense that given our history, we should now go with gender qoutas – its just a pity it ever had to come to this, but nothing else has worked here.
I would hope it would be just a short term measure maybe for 20 years unlike the gender bais that has existed for men since 1937 when the Constitution was written. And for hundreds of years before that - change is difficult, if it was easy it would have happened already.

This info may be interest to you "If left to its own devices, it will take approximately 370 years for Ireland to reach a 50:50 gender balance in politics. If passed, this gender quota legislation will help to shock the system and ensure that more women can overcome the highly gendered, localistic barriers they face. Once women are on the ballot, it will be up to voters to decide." (Information taken from a study by among others, Fiona Buckley is a lecturer in the Department of Government, University College Cork.)

MagicSean

Zombrex wrote: »

Having your expected social role defined in law is not a "positive right". Men are not mentioned because men were considered free to do what ever the heck they wanted. Women were to be mothers and home makers.

Saying this is sexist against men is a bit like saying that Indian cast system was classist against rich people because it demanded that only the poor work in the sewers or handled waste. What if the rich wanted to work in the sewers, those poor rich people! :P

The section defines nothing. Nor does it require anything of a woman. It simply grants the right to a woman to contribute to the home without the financial need to work elsewhere.

sparkling sea wrote: »

You need to read the Constitution and look at its aspirations.

It was written in a time of gender inequality, that is the backdrop to it and the aim of certain subsections particularly in the area of fundemental rights was to exclude women from politics.

You've made your speeches already. Can you show these sections which attack the fundamental rights of women or attempt to exclude them from politics.

sparkling sea wrote: »

Your the first person I've ever heard suggest, gender quotas should be enshrined in the Constitution. But any sociology book relating to contempary Ireland will give you a wealth of information as to why positive action is needed in relation to womens participation in politics at governmental level.

Perhaps you should read the thread then. This is about constitutional reform, not gender quotas.

sparkling sea wrote: »

Again have you read it? Do you understand the history behind it? Your answers suggest you don't.

Your commenting on something you appear to know very little about; I have given examples that are widely accepted as discriminatory against women. Bunreacht na hEireann is taken to be a gender bais Constitution, partly but not only because of the time it was written. In the main, the gender makeup of all but a few senior office holders back up ever single thing I say. Do you understand that - I don't know?

How ridiculously condescending. And still you haven't given a single example or anything to back up what you say. "widely accepted" is not sufficient as supporting your opinion.

sparkling sea

MagicSean wrote: »

The section defines nothing. Nor does it require anything of a woman. It simply grants the right to a woman to contribute to the home without the financial need to work elsewhere.



You've made your speeches already. Can you show these sections which attack the fundamental rights of women or attempt to exclude them from politics.



Perhaps you should read the thread then. This is about constitutional reform, not gender quotas.



How ridiculously condescending. And still you haven't given a single example or anything to back up what you say. "widely accepted" is not sufficient as supporting your opinion.

You won't find a historian or anyone who has studied this who agrees with your analysis but there you go.

Yep the OP felt that the C was gender neutral, constitutional reform encompasses amending the C. I've read the thread.

I have shown you to examples in Art 41, you have rejected these. The makeup of our political representative also confirm this , you disagree even though its generally accepted. You are entitled to your opinion, its pointless for me to discuss this any further with you, we'll just keep going round in the same very small circle.

jackofalltrades

sparkling sea wrote: »

No surprised by that, it's kind of obvious from your cherry picked reply.

Would you care to answer any of the questions that I raised in reply to your post?

If passed, this gender quota legislation will help to shock the system and ensure that more women can overcome the highly gendered, localistic barriers they face. If passed, this gender quota legislation will help to shock the system and ensure that more women can overcome the highly gendered, localistic barriers they face.

What are these highly gendered barriers?

MagicSean

sparkling sea wrote: »

You won't find a historian or anyone who has studied this who agrees with your analysis but there you go.

Yep the OP felt that the C was gender neutral, constitutional reform encompasses amending the C. I've read the thread.

I have shown you to examples in Art 41, you have rejected these. The makeup of our political representative also confirm this , you disagree even though its generally accepted. You are entitled to your opinion, its pointless for me to discuss this any further with you, we'll just keep going round in the same very small circle.

You cited 1 example of Art 41 and I explained how it does not affect women negatively. Can you show me one thing at all that Article 41 has brought about that has a negative effect on women?

All I'm asking is for you to explain or back up any of your claims. You have not done this. I have a feeling that you are probably the same poster who engaged in the same behaviour a while back in a thread specifically about gender neutrality. Lots of claims and statements but no one iota of explanation or proof.

Zombrex

sparkling sea wrote: »

Perhaps thats why the groups you mentioned are not really represented in politics and are constantly lobbying for change. We do not have an Oireachtas that is representative of our society, this despite the fact that we claim to be a representative democracy.

The goal of a representative democracy is not to have an Oireachtas that is a representation of our society but to have an Oireachtas that represents our society.

The State does not tell the people who they must vote for.

sparkling sea wrote: »

We've tried your suggestions for the past 40 years, they haven't worked and thats why quotas are being called for. Change has to start somewhere, it makes sense that given our history, we should now go with gender qoutas

If there are limits in the way of women entering politics then you remove them. But one does not throw away democracy because one feels it does not work in their favour.

Annasopra

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Women made up 8% of independent candidates in the 2011 general election. If the selection processes of political parties was designed to discriminate against women, can you explain why Fine Gael selected women at double the rate when compared to them self selecting themselves by running as an independent candidate?

If you look at the labour party, even though only 4% of their members are women they made up 26% of electoral candidates. Being a women in this party gives you a much higher chance of being selected for being an electoral candidate over a man.


And what are these barriers?
I really don't see why you are bringing race into this discussion.


Good to see a list where I'm proud that Ireland lags behind.

Where did you get the figures of 4% of labour party members are women?

jackofalltrades

Double checked it, it's actually 37%.

sparkling sea

Zombrex wrote: »

If there are limits in the way of women entering politics then you remove them. But one does not throw away democracy because one feels it does not work in their favour.

The more diverse the Oireachtas the more represents all sectors of society

There has to be political will to remove them, why put the effort into change when the change will directly affect your chances of election. Lip service is all that is paid to this issue and thats the way it will stay unless gender quotas are introduced, at least for a limited amount of time

You call a long established gender bais in favour of men democratic, I don't

Most of all you are, for what ever reason, ignoring all the research in this area

sparkling sea

MagicSean wrote: »

You cited 1 example of Art 41 and I explained how it does not affect women negatively. Can you show me one thing at all that Article 41 has brought about that has a negative effect on women?

All I'm asking is for you to explain or back up any of your claims. You have not done this. I have a feeling that you are probably the same poster who engaged in the same behaviour a while back in a thread specifically about gender neutrality. Lots of claims and statements but no one iota of explanation or proof.

I citied 2 examples, both are subsections of Art 41. The claims aren't mine, they are the accepted minimum standard.

Your talking 1 x tables, I'm talking fractions - some thing are just the basics when your discussing the Constitution and gender discrimination with in our C's fundemental rights - your literally arguing black is white. I just can't be bothered.

You should at the very least know the basics if you are going to argue the point.

sparkling sea

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Double checked it, it's actually 37%.

4% to 37% !!

This again taken from Fiona Buckly et al

Contrary to what some believe, women are present in the local echelons of political parties, accounting for 42 per cent of the membership of Fine Gael, 37 per cent of Labour, 34 per cent of Fianna Fáil and 25 per cent of Sinn Féin. These figures illustrate that women are less likely than men to rise up from the membership ranks to the ballot paper. The gender gap is particularly large for Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, who each ran 15 per cent female candidates in the 2011 election.

And an example of barriers - again from the same article.

"Politics is not a level-playing pitch. Research has identified gendered barriers, such as childcare, that prevent fair competition for political office. The CSO 2010 Women and Men in Ireland Report found that half a million women in 2010 were looking after home/family compared with only 7500 men. The same report showed that employment rates amongst men and women were more or less the same before having children. However 80.2 per cent of men whose youngest child is 3 or under are in employment. The corresponding figure for women is 56 per cent."

Women are much more likely to care for children, people with are ill, and the elderly. Women are much more likely to care for the vunerable and not have the time to promote themselves. This is not because men are bad, it just because thats the way it has always been.
Neither men or women have benefited from this. All issues in society that need to addressed are not because they don't even make it on to the politcal agenda.

Gender quotas may and hopefully will, go some way to addressing this but we need cultural change also

oscarBravo

At the risk of being repetitive, this has turned into a discussion on the merits or otherwise of gender quotas, when the question at hand is whether there should be gender quotas in the constitution.

As I've already argued, it's no place for them. If it's possible that quotas are a good idea, then write them into legislation. Then, if they turn out (for whatever reason) to be a bad idea, repeal the legislation.

The constitution forms a foundation upon which laws are built. Putting legislation into the constitution is like putting your plumbing and wiring into the foundation of your house: it it turns out you've made a mistake, it's a hell of a lot harder to get them out again.

Amirani

sparkling sea wrote: »

4% to 37% !!

This again taken from Fiona Buckly et al

Contrary to what some believe, women are present in the local echelons of political parties, accounting for 42 per cent of the membership of Fine Gael, 37 per cent of Labour, 34 per cent of Fianna Fáil and 25 per cent of Sinn Féin. These figures illustrate that women are less likely than men to rise up from the membership ranks to the ballot paper. The gender gap is particularly large for Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, who each ran 15 per cent female candidates in the 2011 election.

In order to make an argument like that you'd need to examine female memberships rates at grass roots over a historical time frame. If 10 years ago 90% of party members were male, it's not really much of a surprise if it's that personnel that's risen to the level of general election candidate. Anything else would be fast-tracking on a discriminatory basis.

Obviously these figures are plucked from thin air but it's not as simple as just looking at numbers from a fixed point in time. No solid conclusions can be based on that.

Zombrex

sparkling sea wrote: »

The more diverse the Oireachtas the more represents all sectors of society

And?

Again the goal of the Oireachtas is not to be a representation of society. If the democratic will of the people was to only elect men between 45 and 50 from Longford, that would be what the Oireachtas should look like.

You are working under the assumption that people will vote for people exactly like them, and if they don't something has gone wrong.

So a black woman from Cork should vote for another black woman from Cork and if she didn't well then something is gone wrong and we should make sure than next time she can only vote for another black woman from Cork, because well we know what she really wants.

The State does not dictate to the people who they should be voting for.

sparkling sea wrote: »

Lip service is all that is paid to this issue and thats the way it will stay unless gender quotas are introduced, at least for a limited amount of time

Are women barred from voting? Are woman unable to stand for election? Are women unable to form political parties?

Gender quotas is basically just saying people, particularly women, are voting wrong, we need to tell them how they should be voting for their own good.

What next, burkas to protect their dignity.

sparkling sea wrote: »

You call a long established gender bais in favour of men democratic, I don't

Then you don't understand what democracy is (which is highly likely if you are pushing quotas)

Can you name an election since 1922 where the democratic will of the people was illegally blocked in order to instill an unelected person?

sparkling sea wrote: »

Most of all you are, for what ever reason, ignoring all the research in this area

If you can show me the research that says this isn't the State dictating who can stand for election and who the country can or cannot vote for, I'm all ears.

Zombrex

oscarBravo wrote: »

The constitution forms a foundation upon which laws are built. Putting legislation into the constitution is like putting your plumbing and wiring into the foundation of your house: it it turns out you've made a mistake, it's a hell of a lot harder to get them out again.

Could quotas even go ahead without a referendum though?