Ladies and gentlemen, the first ridiculous consequence of gender quotas

osarusan

meeeeh wrote: »

Yes but in elections you are still allowed to run outside party.

That doesn't mean it isn't discrimination.

The guy was told he wouldn't be able to run for office because a woman was chosen instead, simply because she is a woman.

That's pretty much a textbook example of discrimination, regardless of the options still available to him.

meeeeh

osarusan wrote: »

That doesn't mean it isn't discrimination.

The guy was told he wouldn't be able to run for office because a woman was chosen instead, simply because she is a woman.

That's pretty much a textbook example of discrimination, regardless of the options still available to him.

But what if party considers having more women on the ticket is beneficial to them. Is that discrimination or party maximizing the amount of money or votes they could get?

Carlos Orange

meeeeh wrote: »

But what if party considers having more women on the ticket is beneficial to them. Is that discrimination or party maximizing the amount of money or votes they could get?

Can't it be both?

osarusan

meeeeh wrote: »

But what if party considers having more women on the ticket is beneficial to them.

What if?

What if a shop owner thinks that if they don't let any Roma or Travellers in the door, it'll be beneficial to their business?

meeeeh wrote: »

Is that discrimination or party maximizing the amount of money or votes they could get?

It's both*

*(although in this case, posters have argued that they merely paying lip service and meeting quotas by putting women forward as candidates for seats they're likely to lose anyway)

Daith

osarusan wrote: »

*(although in this case, posters have argued that they are putting women forward as candidates for seats they're likely to lose anyway)

As I said

Deirdre Heney won the nomination for Dublin Bay North against Sean Haughey
FF added Sean Haughey to the ticket anyway

If FF didn't add Sean then one of the guys in the OP would probably be in for the running also.

Sean was simply deemed a stronger candidate.

I do think quotas can be discriminatory but there's alot more going on in this case.

Alot easier for the guys affected here to say "I didn't get the nod because I'm a man vs I didn't get the nod because my party doesn't have faith I'm a strong candidate in the area". If FF thought for one second these guys were a good bet, they'd be on the ticket.

(and the idea of gender quotas leading to women picked for weak areas isn't a new thing).

ancapailldorcha

steddyeddy wrote: »

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.

To be honest, I'd rather see more efforts concentrated at getting people from working class backgrounds involved in politics, ie people who resemble the majority of the population as opposed to the usual papering over approach. I don't see much point in replacing rich white men with women from the same demographic via quotas though I do agree with initiatives aimed at encouraging more women to consider a career in politics and to engage in political activism.

osarusan

Daith wrote: »

As I said

Deirdre Heney won the nomination for Dublin Bay North against Sean Haughey
FF added Sean Haughey to the ticket anyway

If FF didn't add Sean then one of the guys in the OP would probably be in for the running also.

What FF do in other constituencies isn't really relevant to the question of whether this is discrimination or not.

Daith wrote: »

I do think quotas can be discriminatory but there's alot more going on in this case.

In this case, this particular case, according to the Irish Times:

Members of the party in Dublin South Central and Dublin Central received a letter last night from the national conventions committee stating it had decided that “one candidate be selected at the convention and that candidate be a woman”.
It is the first time any of the major parties has issued an instruction that a single candidate of a particular gender be selected.

It certainly seems like discrimination to me, based on that, and the wider context isn't really relevant at all, I don't think.

Daith wrote: »

Alot easier for the guys affected here to say "I didn't get the nod because I'm a man vs I didn't get the nod because my party doesn't have faith I'm a strong candidate in the area".

It doesn't look like mere excuses in this particular case.

Carlos Orange

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't see much point in replacing rich white men with women from the same demographic via quotas though I do agree with initiatives aimed at encouraging more women to consider a career in politics and to engage in political activism.

So you don't see much progress in replacing a system where the son of a former TD gets chosen with a system where the daughter of a former TD gets chosen?

Daith

osarusan wrote: »

It certainly seems like discrimination to me, based on that, and the wider context isn't really relevant at all, I don't think.

Politics has everything to do with the wider context.

FF are running areas with two men on the ticket rather than one man one woman. They're entire plan is to maximize who will get an elected while getting all their funding.

osarusan

Daith wrote: »

Politics has everything to do with the wider context.

I think that is a copout to be honest.

Daith

osarusan wrote: »

I think that is a copout to be honest.

Not at all. In some cases FF are running two men in an area. For every man that they run they know the chances of them running another man in a different area decreases.

expectationlost

kneemos wrote: »

They just going to run the extra female candidates in unwinnable constituencies anyway so I can't see any net gain in gender ratio.

well here we see something else, what chance she has I don't know

osarusan

Daith wrote: »

Not at all. In some cases FF are running two men in an area. For every man that they run they know the chances of them running another man in a different area decreases.

That doesn't make it any less discriminatory in this particular case.

If a company issues a directive across all regional offices that 20% of all new employees must be women, and this manifests itself down the line in regional office Z where the interviewers are told that, to meet the 20% quota, even though there are candidates of both sexes, the person who gets the job must be a woman, it is still discrimination.

meeeeh

Crixus2000 wrote: »

If that figure would have been 10% then the 20% who were men lost their positions simply due to their gender. That's unacceptable.

And it's acceptable that only 10% are women? The dismal state of childcare tells you that women have very little policy input. Ireland has one of the highest shares of non working adults who are not seeking employment and it's predominately women. You really think it's men being discriminated, when the whole system is geared against women actively participating in work outside home or in politics.

osarusan

You edited this into your post:

Daith wrote: »

They're entire plan is to maximize who will get an elected while getting all their funding.

Yes, I fully understand that it is part of a wider scheme to balance getting votes and getting funding, but that doesn't mean it isn't also discrimination.

suicide_circus

Beware the ideologue.

Daith

osarusan wrote: »

Yes, I fully understand that it is part of a wider scheme to balance getting votes and getting funding, but that doesn't mean it isn't also discrimination.

I don't know if discrimination rules apply to parties like this (aren't they private clubs or something?).



In anycase all I'm saying is this:

These men aren't getting nod because they're men yes and because there are other men in different areas who their party thinks has a better chance of getting elected.

anvilfour

Remember though - Feminists just want equality... :-D

ancapailldorcha

psinno wrote: »

So you don't see much progress in replacing a system where the son of a former TD gets chosen with a system where the daughter of a former TD gets chosen?

No. That was my point.

Daith

anvilfour wrote: »

Remember though - Feminists just want equality... :-D

I would actually be insulted if I was a women and only got the nod because of the quota.

Much like the BBC Panel shows that needed to have a least women female.

osarusan

Daith wrote: »

In any case all I'm saying is this:

These men aren't getting nod because they're men yes

And that is all I'm saying. They didn't get it because of their sex.

and because there are other men in different areas who their party thinks has a better chance of getting elected.

Wider policies on gender quotas, or quotas of any kind, don't exclude something from being discriminatory - in fact they make it more likely in the end as somebody, somewhere, will get passed over for something because of that quota.


Is more women in politics a good thing? I would say yes.

Will quotas achieve that? I would say definitely yes.

Will it be fair in all cases? I would say no, and certainly not initially, in the way FF are going about it.

jackofalltrades

Yeah blatant discrimination, plain and simple.
And I see the arguments for quotas are as weak as ever.

I'd love to see how suggestions for a 40% quota would go down in female dominated workplaces?

Dan_Solo

I've a quota of women's arses to pinch and ask "shouldn't you be married off instead of working?" this month.
Once I call it a quota it isn't sexist anymore apparently. Yay.

Carlos Orange

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Yeah blatant discrimination, plain and simple.
And I see the arguments for quotas are as weak as ever.

I'd love to see how suggestions for a 40% quota would go down in female dominated workplaces?

I'd love to see how a quota on university entrance would go down.

Annasopra

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The latter isn't egalitarianism/equality. As another poster said, egalitarianism isn't really about equality of outcome.

But don't you promote an equality of outcome economic system?

Annasopra

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

It's misleading to suggest there is only one form of egalitarianism/equality. Egalitarians have posited that there are three different forms of equality - not just one. - Basic equality, Liberal equality and Equality of condition. Many egalitarians do support equality of condition as it goes above and beyond the liberal equality ideas of equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

See Baker, Lynch, Cantillon and Walsh 2006

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://irserver.ucd.ie/bitstream/handle/10197/2086/Baker%2520Lynch%2520Cantillon%2520Walsh%2520(2006)%2520Equality%2520Putting%2520the%2520Theory%2520into%2520Action%2520(pre-print).pdf%3Fsequence%3D1&ved=0CCAQFjABahUKEwij1bO2-4DIAhXKaxQKHTqUB_g&usg=AFQjCNFcuG2QCRilPlMNot2f824LPJU9iQ&sig2=gkwrmKwAfYPitbm5XKaUGw

Annasopra

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.

There's no smearing here at all.

I completely support quotas because I'm an egalitarian. This idea that there is only one form of egalitarianism and it is anti quotas is absolute nonsense.

KomradeBishop

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But don't you promote an equality of outcome economic system?

What have I promoted that gives you that idea? (n.b. the username is just a pisstake of people calling me 'Marxist' all the time, without actually knowing anything about my views - I don't support that, it's as debunked economically as Libertarianism)

osarusan

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I completely support quotas because I'm an egalitarian.

Do you think the quota has been discriminatory in this case?

KomradeBishop

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It's misleading to suggest there is only one form of egalitarianism/equality. Egalitarians have posited that there are three different forms of equality - not just one. - Basic equality, Liberal equality and Equality of condition. Many egalitarians do support equality of condition as it goes above and beyond the liberal equality ideas of equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

See Baker, Lynch, Cantillon and Walsh 2006

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://irserver.ucd.ie/bitstream/handle/10197/2086/Baker%2520Lynch%2520Cantillon%2520Walsh%2520(2006)%2520Equality%2520Putting%2520the%2520Theory%2520into%2520Action%2520(pre-print).pdf%3Fsequence%3D1&ved=0CCAQFjABahUKEwij1bO2-4DIAhXKaxQKHTqUB_g&usg=AFQjCNFcuG2QCRilPlMNot2f824LPJU9iQ&sig2=gkwrmKwAfYPitbm5XKaUGw

A quote from that paper:

The radical ideal of equality of condition differs from the views of liberal egalitarians in all five dimensions.

There seems to be emphasis in that paper, of separating 'equality of outcome/condition' from egalitarianism - i.e. as a statement on how things are - though it recommends including equality of outcome in future egalitarian policy proscriptions - i.e. as a statement of how things should be in the future.

I just skimmed it, so maybe I misread, but that seems to indicate that egalitarianism is presently not about equality of outcome.

I provided a source earlier as well, that points out egalitarians tend to not support equality of outcome.