Political Gender Quotas - The Reality

um7y1h83ge06nx

An article today in the Irish Independent:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/taoiseach-searching-for-15-females-to-meet-gender-quota-3376194.html

Taoiseach searching for 15 females to meet gender quota

By Fionnan Sheahan
Monday February 04 2013

TAOISEACH Enda Kenny needs to find 15 women to run as candidates in the next general election for Fine Gael to meet new gender quotas.

Fine Gael's male senators are suddenly realising there will be little or no room for them on the party ticket.

Party bosses say if all the sitting TDs run again, the party will need to run at least another 15 women to meet the new 30pc gender quota.

Under laws brought in by Environment Minister Phil Hogan, three out of 10 of a party's candidates have to be women.

Failure to reach the quota means the party loses half of its funding from the taxpayer, effectively giving away millions of euro.

The party has 11 female TDs out of a total of 73 deputies, not including the seats won by now Independent Denis Naughten, Ceann Comhairle Sean Barrett and the late junior minister Shane McEntee.

Fine Gael general secretary Tom Curran told TDs and senators last week that if all 73 TDs ran again, the party would have to run a minimum of 88 candidates to meet the quota – and the 15 new candidates would all have to be women.

Once the party went above 88 candidates, a few men could be added – but only on a ratio of two men to one woman.

Mr Curran's briefing focused the minds of male senators, in particular, who realised they faced an enormous challenge to get on to the ticket.

"He disappointed a couple of people the other night alright. It was the subject of discussions in the bar and restaurant afterwards," a source said.

Fine Gael is taking the gender quotas very seriously.

The party has hired outside consultants, from a company called Equality Strategies, to advise it on how to change its structures.

"For us, it is not about identifying candidates. It is about changing the entire party," a source said.

- Fionnan Sheahan

What a terrible day. "Fine Gael's male senators are suddenly realising there will be little or no room for them on the party ticket." People are being pushed out specifically because of their gender, blatantly sexist.

I'm still flabbergasted at how an archaic law such as this was passed, where are all the modern thinking people gone?

Dravokivich

Zuri Aggressive Revolution wrote: »

I'm still flabbergasted at how an archaic law such as this was passed, where are all the modern thinking people gone?

Many people have the missunderstanding that for equality to exist between the genders there needs to be a 50/50 mix as a result. As opposed to no preventative measures to withhold someone's participation based on any discriminatory means.

Next up,

A quota between tall and short people, as those who are 6 foot tall don't get how things can be so out of reach for those unable to stretch to the top shelf.

I hereby request mandatory lower top shelves! Only to show how much of a joke gender quotas are.

awec

This post has been deleted.

Sauve

Denying somebody the opportunity to run for election because of their gender?
Isn't this what we've spent the past 100 years fighting against?

Give me strength. :mad:

Pawwed Rig

I think from now on when Fine Gael/Fail are looking at who to nominate they will look at the daughters of the previous guy rather than the son which is what has happened up until now.

Not sure why the Senators are worried about this issue considering that one of FG's goals is to abolish the Seanad so gender quotas really won't affect them.

Drav makes a good point in that in that where do we stop at this? In Ireland 12% of the population are non ethnic Irish. How many of them are in The Dail? Never mind the civil service which is overwhelmingly ethnic Irish. Where are the quotas there?

How about economics? We should have 30% of TD's from council estates in The Dail. We should also ensure 10% of candidates are gay.

ToxicPaddy

While I do understand the need to break up the "aul boys club" in certain areas of politics/senior mgmt/boardrooms etc..

I feel this is completely the wrong way of going about it. There are plenty of intelligent ladies out there who could be enticed into the world of politics if the right incentives were there.

Just throwing a few of the opposite sex to meet some quota is absolutely stupid as it doesn't necessarily mean you get the best candidate, just one that meets a quota.

As seen in other parts of the world, systems designed to meet racial, sex or religious quotas almost always fall into a complete shambles as they are exploited by those in the know and rarely get the candidates suitable, if anything these suitable candidates run a mile from them as they don't want to be associated with these roles as everyone will think they are there just to fill a quota and not because they earned it.

But sure with the current government proving day in and day out they are as big a bunch of idiots and as corrupt as the last bunch, what do you expect??? :rolleyes:

fenris

As we get closer to 2081 you have to wonder how far off the mark Kurt Vonnegut was with Harrison Bergernon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

I know that it is a bit of an odd and idealistic thing to suggest, but shouldn't we be trying to move things towards selection based on merit rather than genitalia?

Or even better find a way to close the feedback loop so there is real accountability for decisions taken/not taken, since decision making is the job that these people have put themselves forward for and accepted.

Eventuality the real skill will be to belong to as many token sub groups as possible so that it would be illegal not to give you whatever role you wanted. I know that at the moment it is only politicians, but what if the concept was more wide spread?

I would like to believe that a surgeon was the best available regardless of gender/orientation/race etc. and not just the one who ticked the most boxes on the PC equality lottery.

Sauve

fenris wrote: »

Or even better find a way to close the feedback loop so there is real accountability for decisions taken/not taken since decision making is the job that these people have put themselves forward for and accepted.

Bingo.
All this crap that they're at now is only masking the real problems.

LostPassword

I think a legislature with a better gender balance is a better thing in general and that the likely benefits will outweigh any negatives associated with people of merit missing out. There is no reason at all to think that those who get in as part of the quota will tend to do a significantly worse job than those who would miss out (as it's not a specialist job where people need lots of training - one given TD can do the job pretty much as well as any other candidate). And the idea that our current system selects candidate TDs on their merit as public administrators and legislators is rather far fetched.

Peregrinus

Sauve wrote: »

Denying somebody the opportunity to run for election because of their gender?
Isn't this what we've spent the past 100 years fighting against?

Give me strength. :mad:

Nobody is being "denied the opportunity to run because of their gender".

Fine Gael can run as many candidates as they like, They will certainly run more than 88, so there is room for all the existing TDs, plus 15 extra women, plus more besides.

And even if someone seeks, and does not get, a nomination from FG, they can run for election anyway.

Nobody has a *right* to a nomination from FG. People have always competed for nominations, and factors taken into account in the past include geographic spread, profession, age, since the party wants to run a somewhat diverse slate of candidates. Gender is now going to be a factor (or a bigger factor that it has been in the past).

Death and Taxes

awec wrote: »

There is no such thing as positive discrimination. This is blatant sexism, pure and simple.

This solves no problems, it just masks and papers over the underlying issue.

This quota stuff is a load of absolute bollocks.

Personally I don't agree with this idea of gender quotas, I think there are far greater reforms of the political system that arev needed and this is not one of them.
However I have to disagree with you that "There is no such thing as positive discrimination". There is, and at times it is necessary to address previous wrongs, for example where a group have been denied their rights or have been the subject of institutional discrimination , then positive discrimination can be one of many strategic inititives to undo the wrong or redress the imbalance.
However that is not the case in this instance, women have not been probhibited from entering politics or running for office, we have had two women elected president, numerous women have been and are T.D.'s , Senators, Ministers etc.
To me this smacks of window dressing.

knucklehead6

What the hell is wrong with picking the best person for the job, regardless of sex? Having a gender quota is just plain stupid.

Sleepy

So instead of electing idiots, we now have to elect their wives :rolleyes:

What we need is selection based on ability: i.e a qualification in governance must be achieved before one can even submit oneself for election and another to qualify one to cast a ballot.

We need qualified politicians, not jumped up school-teachers/publicans/former sports starts who happen to be popular amongst the undereducated.

EricPraline

Sleepy wrote: »

So instead of electing idiots, we now have to elect their wives :rolleyes:

I know you're joking, but it would be interesting to see what proportion of female candidates will be the wives/daughters/sisters of existing party members.

While one of the arguments that is often rolled out for the quota is that it will encourage "new thinking" and break up the existing cabal, I expect that we will simply see Pádraigs replaced with Beverleys.

Pawwed Rig

EricPraline wrote: »

Pádraigs replaced with Beverleys.

Interesting choice of names:D.

Unfortunately democracy throws up these issues. The real problem is the people who vote rather than those elected. We are still an extremely parochial country with many voting on local issues or voting for the guy that sorted out the planning permission for me Ma. This low level corruption is everywhere in Ireland. Until we can separate the parish from the Dail the same families will get in over and over. I would think a Dail of 70-80 elected by the people (1 TD per 50K people) along with a Seanad of professionals nominated by the professions/guilds/whatever would achieve this. The quota thing is a distraction and will most likely make little difference

Sleepy

EricPraline wrote: »

I know you're joking, but it would be interesting to see what proportion of female candidates will be the wives/daughters/sisters of existing party members.

While one of the arguments that is often rolled out for the quota is that it will encourage "new thinking" and break up the existing cabal, I expect that we will simply see Pádraigs replaced with Beverleys.

Sadly, I'm not joking. This is exactly what I expect to see happen.

awec

This post has been deleted.

knucklehead6

It's quite possibly because until society sees a better candidate being refused/denied a place on a running ticket by someone of the opposite sex who is less capable, there will be an element of "it doesn't affect me" about it.

Pawwed Rig

That won't happen though as there are maybe 10-20 current TD's that I would think have the skills and qualifications needed to do the job they are doing. The rest are just background noise. Whether that background noise is male, female, midget or giant is fairly irrelevant

GalwayGuy2

Or is it because society views discrimination against the supposed dominant party as something else entirely?

Tbf, that's probably close to the truth. If one group is seen as discriminating against the discriminated group, is it discriminate to give a helping hand to the discriminated group?

If you think you live in a world of patriarchy, wouldn't you do anything to try and create equality?

awec

This post has been deleted.

juan.kerr

Bit of a joke alright.

iptba

awec wrote: »

I'd love to know why this form of discrimination is deemed to be ok by society. Is it because men's rights groups aren't as good at whipping up frenzy and outrage?

Yes, I would think that's a part of it.

Also, once forceful feminists like Sen. Ivana Bacik make proposals/make gender points (she was largely responsible for the Justice committee report that led to this), I think a large amount of politicians, perhaps esp. male ones, will avoid challenging her/her proposals, perhaps fearing the attack she or others might mount on them as sexist, etc. It's something that works well for feminists in the 3-D world; not so well on anonymous internet fora.

Reku

iptba wrote: »

It's something that works well for feminists in the 3-D world; not so well on anonymous internet fora.

Horrifying when you have to wonder if the average internet troll's mind has a greater anchor in living in a real world than many of those in the actual real world.:eek::(

But yes, I regularly just let feminists I know in real life spout their dogma unchallenged as I feel there's no point in arguing, they just don't want to listen to reason, not too different to the fundamentalists/zealots of any other belief system. They just fall back on the same arguments and claims, offering up no actual evidence to support them, and then start throwing around the "sexist" and "misogynist" accusations. Even were society as a whole to challenge them they'd just put it down to society being patriarchal (wicked sinners, or whatever it is that the specific fundamentalist view pegs those who don't hold the same view) and dig in even deeper into their trench.

Sadly this is a cost of social freedom, that others will be able to use their freedom to diminish yours and there's no solution to that problem.:(

limklad

I am not in favour in quotas, If they are going to do quota when it should be in every work place in the state. I.e. Women doing the messier harder jobs that women refuse to apply for and then complain they are not getting the best Jobs.

I prefer the best in the Dail, but unfortunately we do not always get the best and too many TDs who are way too quite and do very little and just follow the whip system. I do not care if they are all teenagers in the Dail, if they are the best available to run the country. If the teenager are the best to run the country then we are all f*cked.

I looked at the candidates at every voting Ballots over the years in the Local Council, European and Dail elections, The problem is not enough Women, never mind credible women are putting themselves forward to the Voters. So I am as always trying to pick the better out of a bad lot. Like Picking the better of flawed apples from the rotten apples in a barrel. One female candidate going for the council the last time, had no clue how little power the councillor have. She was falsely under the impression that she could tell the council manager what to do when she is voted in by voting on motions. I asked her what policies she wanted to get past the council and the procedures in getting those policies pass in the council. She had no clue and try to bluff her way through it, what she can and cannot do. I did not vote for her because not only was she clueless about the council does, she was also arrogant in the worst possible way and thinks she could fool me enough to vote for her. I have yet to meet a male candidate as bad as her and by god I met many arrogant male politicians! Most of them were idiots following the party line. Gilmore and his comments in the last elections about his way when it came to Berlin, was like a cuddly new born pussy cat in comparison in his delusion to her.

I believe we will not get a better Dail because of genders quotas. The problem is we are not going to get the better women putting their names forward. Instead is the same old family connections or high profile GAA stars etc will be put forward with the same old ding dong politics, therefore not the best in the country going for the dail. It is basic discrimination based on sex, purely and simply.

It is like denying women applying for nursing jobs but deny it because the gender quota must be filled, even though the woman applying for the same job may be better qualified and better experience than the inexperience male applicant. It like saying to the woman, sorry lady you do not have a penis, you got a vagina instead. She more than likely get a knife and cut off your d*ck to get the Job. How would you feel if you got a raw deal as a patient?
I would not want that inexperience nurse putting a needle into me unsupervised. You as a patient is not worthy to have the best possible nurse to look after you.

Disclaimer: No disrespect to male nurses, but you get my point.

For years, I could never understand why more women never put themselves forward to the Dail especially when more than half the population is women and Women had voting rights since the foundation of the State before Britain's women got a vote. Yet I get the same old tired pathetic excuses about religion, male sexism etc. One thing for sure my grandmother neighbour put it perfectly it was not the men in the old days who put her down, it was other women. The other women said the woman place was in the home and not out in the workplace, she refuse to listen to them and told her daughters to go out and work in the workplace and never mind those old bags. She said the abuse she receive from these women were horrific, if was like her behaviour and her children behaviour in the working world was threatening them in their home by some magical event. She said thankfully those spiteful women were few and she had great friends to support her.

um7y1h83ge06nx

limklad wrote: »

One thing for sure my grandmother neighbour put it perfectly it was not the men in the old days who put her down, it was other women. The other women said the woman place was in the home and not out in the workplace, she refuse to listen to them and told her daughters to go out and work in the workplace and never mind those old bags. She said the abuse she receive from these women were horrific, if was like her behaviour and her children behaviour in the working world was threatening them in their home by some magical event. She said thankfully those spiteful women were few and she had great friends to support her.

Spot on. I often say the same thing, women are their own worst enemy. A little OT but people complain that women today have unrealistic pressure put on them regarding weight, looks etc. However one of the biggest offenders for spreading this message are women's magazines, and they are staffed and managed largely by women.

keane2097

The idea of this isn't to force women into positions at the expense of men, it's to force the male dominated political parties to be more proactive in attempting to get more women involved in the political process and get more women to run as representatives.

This is undoubtedly a good thing.

keane2097

keane2097 wrote: »

The idea of this isn't to force women into positions at the expense of men, it's to force the male dominated political parties to be more proactive in attempting to get more women involved in the political process and get more women to run as representatives.

This is undoubtedly a good thing.

Why? Women run more in parties than as independents compared to men. There's nothing to suggest that the parties discourage women from running.

keane2097

Deleted User wrote: »

Why? Women run more in parties than as independents compared to men. There's nothing to suggest that the parties discourage women from running.

I don't think they actively discourage women but in a traditionally male dominated enterprise like politics not actively discouraging isn't exactly sterling work in the area of promoting a desirable gender balance.

This sort of thing forces the parties to actively encourage more women to get involved in a domain many don't see as a very welcoming one.

From the POV of the lofty philosophical discussion of gender equality this sort of initiative probably isn't the ideal approach, but from a real world POV of us having a dearth of females working in public representation this will be a great help in solving that problem by forcing political parties to be more progressive.

keane2097

keane2097 wrote: »

I don't think they actively discourage women but in a traditionally male dominated enterprise like politics not actively discouraging isn't exactly sterling work in the area of promoting a desirable gender balance.

This sort of thing forces the parties to actively encourage more women to get involved in a domain many don't see as a very welcoming one.

From the POV of the lofty philosophical discussion of gender equality this sort of initiative probably isn't the ideal approach, but from a real world POV of us having a dearth of females working in public representation this will be a great help in solving that problem by forcing political parties to be more progressive.

Sure **** it, should pay them more if they get elected, really incentivise it.

As for my previous post, the problem doesn't lie with parties, it lies with "women".

keane2097

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure **** it, should pay them more if they get elected, really incentivise it.

Strawman much?

Deleted User wrote: »

As for my previous post, the problem doesn't lie with parties, it lies with "women".

It's really a more complicated situation than you seem to be giving it credit for. I don't think you'll find too many supporters for the notion that women as a swath of the population have some inherent disinclination or inability to play an equal role in politics.

I liked your use of inverted commas by the way, Freud would have a field day.

keane2097

keane2097 wrote: »

Strawman much?

Why not?

It's really a more complicated situation than you seem to be giving it credit for. I don't think you'll find too many supporters for the notion that women as a swath of the population have some inherent disinclination or inability to play an equal role in politics.

Yet they don't put themselves forward as much and are better represented in the parties than as independents. There is nothing whatsoever stopping anyone from running as an independent (if there are any exceptions they'd likely impact men more often) so I think that yes, there is an inherent disinclination to go for it in politics.

I liked your use of inverted commas by the way, Freud would have a field day.

I dislike talking about half of the country's population as one body but ridiculous measures like this unfortunately necessitate it. Nice to see though that you reduced the thread to that.

keane2097

And I take it you think that inherent disinclination is genetic rather than a result of societal/environmental factors?

keane2097

keane2097 wrote: »

And I take it you think that inherent disinclination is genetic rather than a result of societal/environmental factors?

I don't know where it comes from but there is nothing to suggest that it comes from the political parties and if anything the correlation in the statistics is in the opposite direction.

um7y1h83ge06nx

If you argue that gender quotas are a good thing then maybe we should introduce it into all jobs. Nursing and teaching are female dominated so they should have gender quotas introduced so we can have at least 30% men in those professions.

The danger with what I said in the last paragraph is other sections of society will want quota. Why not introduce race quotas, sexuality quotas, religion quotas, the list goes on. Then it becomes seeing how many boxes you can tick on an application form.

Me? I'm a Caucasian, heterosexual male, I'm f**ked!

knucklehead6

Zuri Aggressive Revolution wrote: »

If you argue that gender quotas are a good thing then maybe we should introduce it into all jobs. Nursing and teaching are female dominated so they should have gender quotas introduced so we can have at least 30% men in those professions.

The danger with what I said in the last paragraph is other sections of society will want quota. Why not introduce race quotas, sexuality quotas, religion quotas, the list goes on. Then it becomes seeing how many boxes you can tick on an application form.

Me? I'm a Caucasian, heterosexual male, I'm f**ked!

Not only that, but you are probably also to blame!!

knucklehead6

Any quota is, by it's very nature, the antithesis of equality.

If i feel that a politician will represent my own views, then whether they pull on a pair of knickers or boxers in the morning has no bearing on how I vote.

miamee

I don't agree in theory with positive discrimination or with gender quotas. By their very nature they alienate anyone against whom they are pitted (in this case men) which creates bad feeling towards the minority and makes it doubly difficult for them to get along in their new role and they have to fight harder to prove that they can do the job.

The way they are going about this seems to me to be very rushed - it is something that should be developed organically over a decade or more starting with kids and teens of both genders, encouraging them and teaching them about politics, politicians, the government, the constitution and law and all of the things they would need to know and presenting it as a viable career option for both boys and girls. Personally, I also think it should be pushed as a viable choice for people from disadvantaged areas who want to change the country they live in but that is another day's work.

We do need to encourage more women into politics and for whatever reason (I confess I don't know if there was some sort of EU quota they had to adhere to by a certain date but can only imagine that's what the rush is) this is the solution they came up with. I think in the short term, it will be messy. Hopefully in the long term, it will harvest the results they are looking for and bring a few more female candidates up in the next few years.

Is the quota for a limited period of time, e.g a few years or is it indefinite?

keane2097

Zuri Aggressive Revolution wrote: »

If you argue that gender quotas are a good thing then maybe we should introduce it into all jobs. Nursing and teaching are female dominated so they should have gender quotas introduced so we can have at least 30% men in those professions.

The reason this argument fails is that politics is a matter of representing people, while nursing and teaching aren't. As far as I know there's nothing to say a male teacher is better than a female teacher or vice versa.

The difference with politics is the notion that women (50% of the electorate) would have representation that better empathises with it if we had more women representatives. Women would be better represented - all things being equal - by women. I'm not making an argument as to whether or not that's the case - I strongly suspect it is but don't have the time to research it - but that's the idea.

There's also a lot of data to suggest that everybody does better when women are in charge, which is a nice bonus assuming the data holds up. There's no real downside to this, everyone stands to gain.

keane2097

miamee wrote: »

I don't agree in theory with positive discrimination or with gender quotas. By their very nature they alienate anyone against whom they are pitted (in this case men) which creates bad feeling towards the minority and makes it doubly difficult for them to get along in their new role and they have to fight harder to prove that they can do the job.

The way they are going about this seems to me to be very rushed - it is something that should be developed organically over a decade or more starting with kids and teens of both genders, encouraging them and teaching them about politics, politicians, the government, the constitution and law and all of the things they would need to know and presenting it as a viable career option for both boys and girls. Personally, I also think it should be pushed as a viable choice for people from disadvantaged areas who want to change the country they live in but that is another day's work.

We do need to encourage more women into politics and for whatever reason (I confess I don't know if there was some sort of EU quota they had to adhere to by a certain date but can only imagine that's what the rush is) this is the solution they came up with. I think in the short term, it will be messy. Hopefully in the long term, it will harvest the results they are looking for and bring a few more female candidates up in the next few years.

Is the quota for a limited period of time, e.g a few years or is it indefinite?

Yeah good post. The idea is to get more women into politics, which benefits everyone.

As you mention, the right way to do it would have been to start with young women, reaching out and encouraging them to get involved (young men as well obviously, the more young people the better).

Unfortunately the will hasn't been there amongst the parties for a hundred years, there's no sign it was ever going to change from the pretty terrible style of old boys' club, where a job is passed from father to sun for all eternity. The odd occasion where a politician disappointingly failed to produce a son and instead had to pass the torch to a daughter shouldn't be misinterpreted - as it seems to have been by one or two - as a sign that the parties are mad to get females in the door.

Ironically, once we are actually forced to move towards a more balanced representation you will almost certainly start to see the sort of measures you mentioned begin to be taken.

iptba

miamee wrote: »

Is the quota for a limited period of time, e.g a few years or is it indefinite?

It's indefinite.

And just to point out, as a lot of people have missed it, it's only a 30% quota for the first seven (?) years, then it's a 40% quota.

iptba

keane2097 wrote: »

There's also a lot of data to suggest that everybody does better when women are in charge, which is a nice bonus assuming the data holds up.

Which is a big if.

Many disciplines are letting us down with regard to the partial approach they take to gender issues e.g. many people who would say the above sentence, or write a document saying it, wouldn't be willing to say the reverse of this i.e. "system X works better when men are in charge".

iptba

keane2097 wrote: »

Unfortunately the will hasn't been there amongst the parties for a hundred years, there's no sign it was ever going to change from the pretty terrible style of old boys' club, where a job is passed from father to sun for all eternity. The odd occasion where a politician disappointingly failed to produce a son and instead had to pass the torch to a daughter shouldn't be misinterpreted - as it seems to have been by one or two - as a sign that the parties are mad to get females in the door.

I don't think this will necessarily decrease the number of politicians' relatives in the Dail. It could even increase the number (I remember doing a rough calculation and more of the female members of the Dail than the male members had a relative who was/had been a politician).

jackofalltrades

keane2097 wrote: »

The reason this argument fails is that politics is a matter of representing people, while nursing and teaching aren't.

Is there any evidence to show that male politicians can't represent women?

There's also a lot of data to suggest that everybody does better when women are in charge, which is a nice bonus assuming the data holds up.

Can I get a link to this data?

Why is it important for women to "be represented" but not foreign nationals etc.?
What's the evidence for everyone doing better when women are involved?

tsiehta

Ideally, you have a wide range of different types of people from a wide range of backgrounds, representing, as much as possible, the wide range of different types of people running for election.

Right now, we have quotas on the number of politicians who must be elected from each constituency, depending on size.

Women make up ~50% of the population, and quite obviously have a generally different life experience and different issues important to them than men. In an ideal world, male politicians would be able to perfectly understand the life experience of their female constituents and could represent their interests for them, but in reality, this is not the case IMO.

AFAIK, there is a 30% quota for male politicians also, which means it's not sexism at all. I don't really see a gender quota as being so different from the regional quotas we already have.

In the future, if it is felt that foreign nationals are not being adequately represented, it might be necessary to explore the reasons why, and implement a strategy to attempt to get more foreign nationals into politics. Maybe the solution would be a quota, maybe not.

keane2097

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Is there any evidence to show that male politicians can't represent women?


Can I get a link to this data?

Deleted User wrote: »

Why is it important for women to "be represented" but not foreign nationals etc.?
What's the evidence for everyone doing better when women are involved?

Google it, there's plenty of studies.

iptba

AFAIK, there is a 30% quota for male politicians also, which means it's not sexism at all.

I'm afraid I find that argument symplistic. So if primary schools or nursing or OT departments of hospitals (etc.) started tomorrow having a 40%* gender quota that wouldn't be sexist, once it was balanced. I think one would find that many would complain because they would say those figures don't represent the gender breakdown of the people looking for the positions and hence it is quite possible that having such quotas can be seen as sexist: they can advantage applicants of one gender, and disadvantage applicants of another.

* In politics, it is mainly a 40% quota (it's only 30% for the first 7 years), so that's what I'm going to talk about.

iptba

tsiehta wrote: »

In the future, if it is felt that foreign nationals are not being adequately represented, it might be necessary to explore the reasons why, and implement a strategy to attempt to get more foreign nationals into politics. Maybe the solution would be a quota, maybe not.

However, it gets quite impractical if one starts having lots of quotas e.g. nationality, disability status, sexual orientation, etc. So in fact, having a quota for one stratification for society, can make it more difficult to have quotas for another.

The fact that feminists got their quota through for women in some ways shows that women are already a strong enough lobby group and don't necessarily need this quota.

Power can come in many forms: the Catholic hierarchy never held any* positions in the Oireachtas yet had plenty of influence.

* or certainly not many

tsiehta

iptba wrote: »

I think one would find that many would complain because they would say those figures don't represent the gender breakdown of the people looking for the positions

If one could make a strong argument for a necessary gender balance in a certain profession, then this would override this argument IMO.

For reasons given in my earlier post, I believe that more of a gender balance is necessary in the Dail.

iptba wrote: »

However, it gets quite impractical if one starts having lots of quotas e.g. nationality, disability status, sexual orientation, etc. So in fact, having a quota for one stratification for society, can make it more difficult to have quotas for another.

I don't think the slippery slope would be as bad or impractical you make it out to be.

Right now we have a Dail of mostly straight, able bodied, white men. There are also nepotistic issues which we're all aware of. I don't consider this to be a good political representation of Ireland. One of the most obvious issues is that it doesn't proportionately represent the number of women in Ireland. It's hard to envision this changing without some sort of revamping of the system.

Quotas might not be the best solution, but they are something. And I really don't see the Dail getting worse because of them.

iptba

iptba wrote:

However, it gets quite impractical if one starts having lots of quotas e.g. nationality, disability status, sexual orientation, etc. So in fact, having a quota for one stratification for society, can make it more difficult to have quotas for another.

I don't think the slippery slope would be as bad or impractical you make it out to be.

My argument was mainly a practical one. Trying to ensure that candidates of a party reach lots of different quotas is difficult in a non-list electoral system. The main way around it would be to advantage people who satisfy various criteria (gay, female, disabled, foreign national or Traveller etc.) which seems like not a good way of doing things as such individuals may in fact be quite uncommon in society and hence one mightn't get a representative group.

Right now we have a Dail of mostly straight, able bodied, white men. There are also nepotistic issues which we're all aware of. I don't consider this to be a good political representation of Ireland. One of the most obvious issues is that it doesn't proportionately represent the number of women in Ireland. It's hard to envision this changing without some sort of revamping of the system.

Why is it hard to envison it changing? Lots of things have changed dramatically in the last few decades. A few decades ago, relatively few women worked full-time in Ireland when they had children. The percentage doing so has increased quite a lot but is still quite a lot lower than other countries from what I could see. But I don't see reason to believe that percentage won't increase more and society change further in the coming decades.

With regard to being straight, a greater percentage of the gay population are male, and they're going to be disadvantaged by these quotas.