Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Apologies if it has been quoted before, but here is an excellent speech by Labour TD Joanna Tuffy dismantling the claims that quotas are the answer and work

    http://www.labour.ie/joannatuffy/blogarchive/2012/03/22/transcript-of-my-speech-in-the-dail-today-where-i-object-to-gender-quota-legislation/

    Not that it particularly matters, even if they did work they would be undemocratic. Dictatorship works as well, but there is a reason we don't have one of them.


  • Options
    #123
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,042 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    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.

    Actually the question is not necessarily about gender quotas at all

    The convention was mandated to look at

    (vi) amending the clause on the role of women in the home and encouraging greater participation of women in public life;

    (vii) increasing the participation of women in politics;

    Qoutas may be one suggestion for both but not necessarily the only proposal or suggestion

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #124
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,042 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Could quotas even go ahead without a referendum though?

    Candidate quotas are already law since July 2012

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #125
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    sparkling sea wrote: »
    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.

    Citing an article is neither proof nor argument. You need to explain how it suuports your claim. If so many scholars and historians back you up then why can'y you cite one of them? If you can't be bothered explaining or backing up anything you say you should stop posting.

    How about if I make the question easier? Give me one example from law where the Article 41 of the Constitution has resulted in a discriminatory law.
    mango salsa wrote: »
    Candidate quotas are already law since July 2012

    Are they a legal requirement or just a basis for deciding which parties get funding?


  • Options
    #126
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,042 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    MagicSean wrote: »

    Are they a legal requirement or just a basis for deciding which parties get funding?

    A legal requirement for parties to receive state funding

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    mango salsa wrote: »
    Candidate quotas are already law since July 2012

    As has been pointed out, that is in relation to which parties qualify for State funding. Which I don't agree with either, but is not as bad, nor unconstitutional, as electoral quotas


  • Options
    #128
    RangeR
    Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    The Constitutional Convention are meeting to discuss this issue at the end of next week. I'm going to try find a free hour or two to go through this thread; to combine the votes and opinions. When done [hopefully in the next few days], I'll post the summary here.

    If you want to get your opinion across and counted, please do so before Friday 15th February 2013.

    Thank you to everyone who discussed so far, for taking to time out to do so.


  • Options
    #129
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,042 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    RangeR wrote: »
    The Constitutional Convention are meeting to discuss this issue at the end of next week. I'm going to try find a free hour or two to go through this thread; to combine the votes and opinions. When done [hopefully in the next few days], I'll post the summary here.

    If you want to get your opinion across and counted, please do so before Friday 15th February 2013.

    Thank you to everyone who discussed so far, for taking to time out to do so.

    Just to point out this discussion has focused around the advantages/disadvantages of gender quotas. There has been almost no discussion on gender quotas in the constitution.

    There has been little or no discussion on broader issues around how the consitution could be used in terms of:

    encouraging greater participation of women in public life;

    (vii) increasing the participation of women in politics;

    I also think (and I could be wrong) that there have been no female participants in this discussion.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #130
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    I think it stands to reason that if a person is against discrimination (ie: quotas), then they are against having them in the constitution. That's fairly obvious.

    I guess the question then becomes: those who believe that quotas are a good idea, do they also believe that quotas should be written into the constitution?


  • Options
    #131
    RangeR
    Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    mango salsa wrote: »
    Just to point out this discussion has focused around the advantages/disadvantages of gender quotas. There has been almost no discussion on gender quotas in the constitution.

    There has been little or no discussion on broader issues around how the consitution could be used in terms of:

    encouraging greater participation of women in public life;

    (vii) increasing the participation of women in politics;

    I also think (and I could be wrong) that there have been no female participants in this discussion.
    Zulu wrote: »
    I think it stands to reason that if a person is against discrimination (ie: quotas), then they are against having them in the constitution. That's fairly obvious.

    I guess the question then becomes: those who believe that quotas are a good idea, do they also believe that quotas should be written into the constitution?

    Fair points. My personal opinion, which I've aired already, is that this issue has no place in our Good Book. My opinion is that there shouldn't even be a law introduced to implement gender quotas. It's just bad thinking and the start of a slippery slope.

    I believe that there should be incentives to parties to bring parity to gender equality [If that's even needed*]. I also believe that this is a fundamental aspect that this is part of a wider issue of electoral reform, that we will be discussing in May/June.

    * I'm torn on this. Part of me thinks that there are few women in politics because they just don't put themselves forward. The fewer nominees, the fewer that can be elected. However, I'm [anecdotally] aware that there are certain barriers that are just insurmountable to women. I would like to get clarity on what those barriers are and see if they can be taken down.

    Summary : I just don't see this as a Constitutional issue and, this topic in particular, is a bull**** one by Government because it's been in the public eye for some time.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Fromthetrees
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭Fromthetrees


    There are less women in politics because of the role they play in society as being the primary caregiver for children.

    Women are drawn more into public sector jobs such as nursing and teaching. Maximum maternity leave, job security, guaranteed holidays, maximum sick pay and far less chance of getting overlooked for promotion are all conducive to raising a family.

    For more women to enter into politics and also the upper echelons of management, law, medicine and other professions that need an incredible amount of time and dedication to succeed in then we have to redefine the role of women that are mothers, and that means redefining the role of men that are fathers in our society too.

    We can't change the biological reasons of why we are where we are but we can change the societal norms, pressures and expectations placed upon women. Tax subsidies and grants for businesses to provide creche facilities would help a lot, splitting of maternity and paternity leave along a more egalitarian line, placing more emphasis on the concept of shared parenting duties and there are many more ways we can help foster this change.

    When we have a law system that grants no rights whatsoever to an unmarried father and places children in the sole care and responsibility of the unmarried mother then you can start to see the bigger picture of where we stand as a nation on how we view women and men regarding children. How a single mother could ever become a politician in this country is beyond me whereas a single father would have a much clearer road (that's assuming both parents of the child are alive but living separately).

    Women have been handed the children and the men have been sent out to work to earn money is the way we can define the first 100 years of our states existence. We have an older generation of Irish women who were extremely constrained by the marriage ban which we are still suffering the hangover from today. Ireland was an extremely Catholic country to the extent that we locked 'unwanted' women up in the Magdalene Laundries as late as the 90's. With the churches iron grip released from the throat of the country we need to move on and away from our 'traditional' family roles and pave the way for a shared and equal standing among the sexes.


  • Options
    #133
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Fromthetrees wrote: »
    There are less women in politics because of the role they play in society as being the primary caregiver for children.

    Women are drawn more into public sector jobs such as nursing and teaching. Maximum maternity leave, job security, guaranteed holidays, maximum sick pay and far less chance of getting overlooked for promotion are all conducive to raising a family.

    For more women to enter into politics and also the upper echelons of management, law, medicine and other professions that need an incredible amount of time and dedication to succeed in then we have to redefine the role of women that are mothers, and that means redefining the role of men that are fathers in our society too.

    We can't change the biological reasons of why we are where we are but we can change the societal norms, pressures and expectations placed upon women. Tax subsidies and grants for businesses to provide creche facilities would help a lot, splitting of maternity and paternity leave along a more egalitarian line, placing more emphasis on the concept of shared parenting duties and there are many more ways we can help foster this change.

    When we have a law system that grants no rights whatsoever to an unmarried father and places children in the sole care and responsibility of the unmarried mother then you can start to see the bigger picture of where we stand as a nation on how we view women and men regarding children. How a single mother could ever become a politician in this country is beyond me whereas a single father would have a much clearer road (that's assuming both parents of the child are alive but living separately).

    Women have been handed the children and the men have been sent out to work to earn money is the way we can define the first 100 years of our states existence. We have an older generation of Irish women who were extremely constrained by the marriage ban which we are still suffering the hangover from today. Ireland was an extremely Catholic country to the extent that we locked 'unwanted' women up in the Magdalene Laundries as late as the 90's. With the churches iron grip released from the throat of the country we need to move on and away from our 'traditional' family roles and pave the way for a shared and equal standing among the sexes.

    You can't redeine the role of women without doing the same for men. Maternity leave should be mostly interchangeable between parents. Custody rights should be equal. Things like this will allow more men to move into the role currently dominated by women.


  • Options
    #134
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,042 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Fromthetrees wrote: »
    There are less women in politics because of the role they play in society as being the primary caregiver for children.

    I don't agree that childcare is the main reason for less women in politics at all. It's much more complex than that.

    Women for election have written a good submission to the convention and put forward several reasons based on research

    https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?aid=e46cfd15-5d74-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4
    Why are there so few women in Irish politics?
    Research classfies the reasons for women’s under-representation in politics as the ‘5 Cs’:

    Confidence: women are less likely to put themselves forward as candidates
    Cash: women have less access to resources than men
    Candidate selection procedures: how political parties select candidates has not traditionally favoured women
    Culture: Irish political culture is masculine, refecting the make-up of politics to date
    Childcare: women are more likely to have this responsibility

    They have put forward some good suggestions for the convention to consider
    What can the Constitutional Convention do?

    The Constitutional Convention has the power to champion the issue of women in political life, to raise awareness about this problem and make concrete recommendations to Government to address it.

    In this role, each member of the Convention has the chance to consider what parts of our Constitution might discourage women’s participation in politics and how our nation’s guiding document should change to today’s values and aspirations.

    In undertaking this task, Women for Election asks you to consider the following:

    The Taoiseach could be a ‘she’

    Our Constitution states what we, as a country, deem important; its words communicate our values. Now, all references to the President, the Taoiseach, the Tanaiste, TDs and Senators within the Constitution are male only (“he”, “him” and “his”). The only “her” is in Article 41 (women in the home).

    Adding ‘she’ to these roles is a simple change in language would make a world of difference.

    It would demonstrate Ireland’s determination to seek balance in our politics, right up to the highest o#ce.

    Making a statement will make a difference

    The ‘4 Ps’ (outlined above) prove how having more women in elected office benefits all of us, yet our Constitution does nothing to actively encourage women’s political participation. In fact, through its use of language, it excludes women.

    We have an opportunity to change this, by including a strong statement to encourage women’s political participation. We call on the Convention to consider the inclusion of a new sub-section in the Constitution,
    stating that:

    “The State acknowledges that true democracy is inclusive of all its citizens. The State shall endeavour, by appropriate means, to promote equality in politics.”

    This simple statement, backed up by inclusive language, would send a positive message to all women that our voices are encouraged, sought out and valued in our country’s political system. That reality would benefit all of us.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #135
    Fromthetrees
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭Fromthetrees


    Why are there so few women in Irish politics?
    Research classfies the reasons for women’s under-representation in politics as the ‘5 Cs’:

    Confidence: women are less likely to put themselves forward as candidates

    I think confidence is a rather silly point for themt to make, I personally wouldn't have the confidence to enter into politics, so what?

    Cash: women have less access to resources than men

    For a number of reasons this is true but they all lead back to children.
    1.Women are drawn more to jobs such as nursing and teaching which are 'safe' jobs but in the long term have less chance to earn bigger money in. Women who have children are far more risk averse than men who have children.
    2.Women are also far more likely to be the parent that gives up her career prospects when it comes to having children.
    3.Women who have children earn less than men who have children yet women who don't have children earn more than men who don't have children. Go figure.

    Candidate selection procedures: how political parties select candidates has not traditionally favoured women

    This is because of how women have been treated since this states inception relating to the care of children.

    Culture: Irish political culture is masculine, refecting the make-up of politics to date

    This is because of how women have been treated since this states inception relating to the care of children.


    I like the idea of changing the wording of the constitution to be gender neutral but that's all it is, it's merely changing a word.

    We need a massive shift in attitude towards how we view parenting in this country. Most if not all of these issues lead back to the care of children and how we view it. If everything relating to children was gender neutral we would be a better country.

    To me, please point out if there are other ways, to get more women into politics you can either have an extremely undemocratic law enforcing gender quotas or we can have actual equality in the area of child care.


  • Options
    #136
    sparkling sea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    A good decision - well done


  • Options
    #137
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,042 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    sparkling sea wrote: »
    A good decision - well done

    what was a good decision?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #138
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Yes, what was decided?


  • Options
    #139
    RangeR
    Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    P_1 wrote: »
    Yes, what was decided?
    To encourage but not enshrine.


  • Options
    #140
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    RangeR wrote: »
    To encourage but not enshrine.
    So anything legislative?


  • Options
    #141
    RangeR
    Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    So anything legislative?

    Honestly, I can't remember. I'm down with a bug at the moment and my head is in a mess.

    I will say, that the irony wasn't lost on our small table by being asked the remove gender from one section [Mothers in the home] and adding it in another section [Women in politics].

    I also think that this was a bull**** excersize [women in politics]. Why were we asked to discuss that over abortion? Also, considering that "women in politics" could have been included with the actual "Electoral Reform" that we are discussing in May/June [TWO months], I saw this as point scoring on behalf of Government. "Look at us, we're trying to lower the barrier of entry to women in politics". Did you know that FF and FG have the lowest percentage of women in their respective groups?

    If FG were serious, about this, they wouldn't have to wait until the people spoke. Just ****ing do it. Less talking, more doing!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    RangeR
    Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    Draft report made available to the 100 this morning. It is hoped that this is agreed and wrapped up by end of next week.

    Draft attached.


Advertisement