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

Ladies and gentlemen, the first ridiculous consequence of gender quotas

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Daith wrote: »
    I'm talking about FF as a whole. The wider picture is important to consider here.

    I don't actually agree with the quotas myself but there's far more thought put into it from FF here.
    Then you're talking about something different to me, and your replies don't make sense as a response to what I've said - as I'm talking specifically about the case in the OP.


  • Options
    #63
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    But their argument is that you need to use positive discrimination in order to create equal opporunity, because the opportunity is not equal in the first place, hence the social and economic engineering.

    So you know... you have to tell colleges who they can admit, you have to tell employers who they can hire and you have to tell voters who they can vote for.

    That is what egalitarianism is. It may may equal but it sure as **** aint fair.
    No the positive discrimination in this case, pushes towards equality of outcome, not opportunity.


  • Options
    #64
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    No the positive discrimination in this case, pushes towards equality of outcome, not opportunity.

    Thats what positive discrimination and quotas are. This is what egalitarianism is.

    Its social/economic engineering, people just blather on mindlessly promoting it because they want paternity leave but have no idea what they are talking about because they never bothered to pick up a moron's guide to political theory....and well here we are.....


  • Options
    #65
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,295 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Its hardly undemocratic, the candidate is still free to stand as an independent with an identical set of policies.


  • Options
    #66
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,933 ✭✭✭Daith


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Then you're talking about something different to me, and your replies don't make sense as a response to what I've said - as I'm talking specifically about the case in the OP.

    Yes two cases of FF people not being selected to run for General Election because of gender quotas?

    My point is they're not being discriminated against because they're men. They're being discriminated against because the party doesn't think they'll win the bloody seat.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    Thats what positive discrimination and quotas are. This is what egalitarianism is.

    Its social/economic engineering, people just blather on mindlessly promoting it because they want paternity leave but have no idea what they are talking about because they never bothered to pick up a moron's guide to political theory....and well here we are.....
    No it isn't - egalitarians are mostly about equality of opportunity, not outcome:
    By the same token, most egalitarians presently do not advocate an equality of outcome, but different kinds of equality of opportunity...
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/

    Right-leaning Libertarian publications try to straw-man egalitarians like this all the time, to smear them and related social causes (attacking egalitarianism, is a great covert way of reviving a lot of socially conservative views, under the 'socially liberal' banner of Libertarianism), because it's politically useful for them to spread disinformation like that.

    Pick up the right book on political theory, and ditch discreditable sources, that cause you to take on misinformation :)


  • Options
    #68
    Potatoeman
    Registered Users Posts: 4,216 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    Thats what positive discrimination and quotas are. This is what egalitarianism is.

    Its social/economic engineering, people just blather on mindlessly promoting it because they want paternity leave but have no idea what they are talking about because they never bothered to pick up a moron's guide to political theory....and well here we are.....

    This was being pushed for by feminist groups not egalitarians. That's why it's soley for the benefit of women. Paternity leave for men is a benefit for men that does not disadvantage women. If men had it too then women would be less impacted by taking it and not seen as an extra expense compared to men.


  • Options
    #69
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Daith wrote: »
    Yes two cases of FF people not being selected to run for General Election because of gender quotas?

    My point is they're not being discriminated against because they're men. They're being discriminated against because the party doesn't think they'll win the bloody seat.
    The OP quote explicitly states - from the party itself - that they are being discriminated against because they are men.


  • Options
    #70
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,933 ✭✭✭Daith


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    The OP quote explicitly states - from the party itself - that they are being discriminated against because they are men.

    Yes because they're in a weak area and FF don't expect to win regardless of who they put on the bloody ballot.

    In the case of an area where they expect a male person to win they'll add them to the ticket such in the case of Sean Haughey who was added despite losing the nomination against a women.

    If you just want to take these isolated cases and not look at the bigger picture it's not looking at it correctly.


  • Options
    #71
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    Potatoeman wrote: »
    This was being pushed for by feminist groups not egalitarians. That's why it's soley for the benefit of women. Paternity leave for men is a benefit for men that does not disadvantage women. If men had it too then women would be less impacted by taking it and not seen as an extra expense compared to men.

    It disadvantages employers and co workers.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    No it isn't - egalitarians are mostly about equality of opportunity, not outcome:
    By the same token, most egalitarians presently do not advocate an equality of outcome, but different kinds of equality of opportunity...
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/

    Right-leaning Libertarian publications try to straw-man egalitarians like this all the time, to smear them and related social causes (attacking egalitarianism, is a great covert way of reviving a lot of socially conservative views, under the 'socially liberal' banner of Libertarianism), because it's politically useful for them to spread disinformation like that.

    Pick up the right book on political theory, and ditch discreditable sources, that cause you to take on misinformation :)

    Sorry but your wrong about that. When you impose quotas on education and employers, and voting booths, that is an imposition of outcome.


  • Options
    #73
    Potatoeman
    Registered Users Posts: 4,216 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    It disadvantages employers and co workers.

    It means employers are less likely to not hire a woman incase she gets pregnant. How does it disadvantage workers anymore than a woman getting maternity leave?


  • Options
    #74
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    Its hardly undemocratic, the candidate is still free to stand as an independent with an identical set of policies.

    It you believe that then why force parties to include female candidates?


  • Options
    #75
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,295 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    psinno wrote: »
    It you believe that then why force parties to include female candidates?

    Are they forced or is a funding issue?


  • Options
    #76
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    All the egalitarians should be happy.

    Dumb but happy.

    I'm not so sure, most egalitarians believe in equality of opportunity rather than outcome. The point there being that no demographic attributes (other than perhaps age, and only if for legitimate and relevant reasons) should preclude somebody from competing for a position.

    What's happened here is that the competition itself has been distorted, so that the outcome is prejudiced before the result has been decided. This, in my view, is where one crosses the line from egalitarianism to demographic fascism.


  • Options
    #77
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Ignatius in bloom wrote: »
    Not sure the whole merit thing works as for the rest? not to many stunners of either gender walking around government buildings.

    Ironically enough, I regard a few of the women I cited in my OP as some of the best TDs we have. Catherine Murphy has been an absolute credit to what democracy is supposed to be about, and Clare Daly along with Ming and Mick has succeeded in bringing extremely serious scandals involving our justice system to the forefront of the political agenda.

    I fully expect all of those TDs to get seats in the next Dail because they have done such a good job of representing the public's interests, unlike so many others (male and female).

    That's why I find this quota rubbish so ridiculous. As well as being sexist against men (which is something we're not supposed to care about) it also devalues the achievements of any women who get chosen just because of this. If I was the woman cited in the article I've linked to in my OP, I'd personally be very uncomfortable knowing that I'd got the nomination on a technicality despite my opponent probably being the public's preferred choice. It would leave a bitter taste in my mouth - I've been in similar positions before, albeit on low level and silly social and personal issues, of being the less preferred, but more convenient person for a role. It doesn't feel good, at all.


  • Options
    #78
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    Potatoeman wrote: »
    It means employers are less likely to not hire a woman incase she gets pregnant. How does it disadvantage workers anymore than a woman getting maternity leave?

    BEcause you have twice as many people having time off....that costs money and your co workers get landed with your workload.

    ITs not going to encourage employers into hiring a woman, because the woman no matter what, will need time off for physical recovery. There is no way around that.


  • Options
    #79
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    Sorry but your wrong about that. When you impose quotas on education and employers, and voting booths, that is an imposition of outcome.
    We're talking about what is and isn't egalitarianism though - quotas are not egalitarianism.

    The idea that quota's = egalitarianism, is exactly the kind of propaganda/smearing put out by right-leaning Libertarian publications, that I described previously.

    That's why they're bad to read, there is so much disinformation, that no individual can hope to fact-check it all, so people just end up getting fooled into taking on misinformation; bad for intellectual health.


  • Options
    #80
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    We're talking about what is and isn't egalitarianism though - quotas are not egalitarianism.

    The idea that quota's = egalitarianism, is exactly the kind of propaganda/smearing put out by right-leaning Libertarian publications, that I described previously.

    That's why they're bad to read, there is so much disinformation, that no individual can hope to fact-check it all, so people just end up getting fooled into taking on misinformation; bad for intellectual health.

    The LIbertarian publications are right, that's why. Certainly about egalitarianism.


  • Options
    #81
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    If a party wants an image of old men that screwed up the economy then yes why to interfere. Btw FG added Richard Bruton after he lost the vote.

    Btw quotas aren't some crazy invention of irish feminists. They worked well internationally and helped more women get in in the first place. But when the system is set up, you actually don't need quotas to maintain female representation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Potatoeman
    Registered Users Posts: 4,216 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    BEcause you have twice as many people having time off....that costs money and your co workers get landed with your workload.

    ITs not going to encourage employers into hiring a woman, because the woman no matter what, will need time off for physical recovery. There is no way around that.

    Yes but it means it's not just female workloads. So it's less likely to be a disadvantage for women as its a cost for both sexes.


  • Options
    #83
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,267 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    meeeeh wrote: »
    Btw quotas aren't some crazy invention of irish feminists. They worked well internationally and helped more women get in in the first place. But when the system is set up, you actually don't need quotas to maintain female representation.

    Worth stressing.

    Plenty of other countries have them and the sky hasn't fallen down.


  • Options
    #84
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    The LIbertarian publications are right, that's why. Certainly about egalitarianism.
    No, you've failed to show that; you've just asserted quota's = egalitarianism, and they are not, and solid links have shown you that egalitarianism is about equality of opportunity (i.e. not quotas) rather than outcome (i.e. quotas).

    Again: Quota's are not Egalitarian.

    The publications are putting out propaganda/disinformation to fool/bias people against a wide range of social causes - they have a very long history of doing this, and have a long history of publishing easily proven lies.

    There's no excuse for repeating disinformation, once it's been pointed out how it's wrong.


  • Options
    #85
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,552 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Agree with a lot of OP, but I don't think it is anti-democratic (at least, not in a new way) - and it isn't the first time it has happened either.


  • Options
    #86
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    meeeeh wrote: »
    Btw quotas aren't some crazy invention of irish feminists. They worked well internationally and helped more women get in in the first place. But when the system is set up, you actually don't need quotas to maintain female representation.

    They clearly discriminate against men entering politics on the basis of their gender. Conceptually they aren't any different than mandating only women and currently elected TD can stand for election.


  • Options
    #87
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    psinno wrote: »
    They clearly discriminate against men entering politics on the basis of their gender.

    How so? If party puts forward 30 percent women, there will still be twice as many men on ticket. Also party is in charge of national strategy and if they decide more women on the list would be beneficial to them then so be it.


  • Options
    #88
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    meeeeh wrote: »
    How so? If party puts forward 30 percent women, there will still be twice as many men on ticket. Also party is in charge of national strategy and if they decide more women on the list would be beneficial to them then so be it.

    When the answer to the question "why didn't I get the job" is "you are a man" discrimination is pretty obvious. Individuals are discriminated against not classes of people. A company couldn't for example decide not to hire any more non white people because they already have 2 of them without discriminating against future job applicants.


  • Options
    #89
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    I genuinely think there people from disadvantaged backgrounds have a harder time of it when it comes to opportunities. This is particularly the case in British law or finance but never in a million years would I think quotas for certain groups are the way forward.


  • Options
    #90
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    psinno wrote: »
    When the answer to the question "why didn't I get the job" is "you are a man" discrimination is pretty obvious. Individuals are discriminated against not classes of people. A company couldn't for example decide not to hire any more non white people because they already have 2 of them without discriminating against future job applicants.

    Yes but in elections you are still allowed to run outside party. I don't know why the idea that there should be just whoever the local members vote in. There should be some sort of national strategy, your party membership could be predominately old, male and poor representation of electorate. FF has the oldest voters in the country, if they don't do anything to attract younger voters, their base will die out. So the local FF members electing their drinking buddy might not be the best option for the party.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    meeeeh wrote: »
    Yes but in elections you are still allowed to run outside party.

    So why do we need to mandate who parties run. Can't women just run as independents?


Advertisement