Ladies and gentlemen, the first ridiculous consequence of gender quotas

Kermit.de.frog

Some of the female politicians in Leinster House are not inspiring much confidence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA4INCBF8Z8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypBGI2_YXeo

In fact some of it scares me.

Cold War Kid

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Some of the female politicians in Leinster House are not inspiring much confidence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA4INCBF8Z8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypBGI2_YXeo

In fact some of it scares me.

You need to brush up on your maths. "One" doesn't mean "some". One or two of the men in Leinster House don't inspire confidence either.

ancapailldorcha

Cold War Kid wrote: »

You need to brush up on your maths. "One" doesn't mean "some". One or two of the men in Leinster House don't inspire confidence either.

Incompetence is by no means gender specific.

Eugene Norman

meeeeh wrote: »

Oh yeah the unofficial is so much better. When you organize politics in a way that makes it very hard for women to run. And then you decide that women don't want to be in politics anyway, they prefer minding kids and knitting. I'm not Irish and while I was very proud how Ireland dealt about same sex issues, the treatment of women in this country is absolutely appalling. And no that it's legalized more than 50% of population should have 30% representation on the ballot, not in the parliament, on the ballot, this is discrimination. Because only lesbians and feminazis would want to run anyway, the rest prefer knitting and let men deal with the important stuff.

Majority of EU countries are trying to do something to increase female representation. And in majority of EU countries my views would be fairly conservative, here I sometimes feel like some pinko liberal.

This country has a single transferable vote. Which means people can vote for any candidate they wish for or for all of them. This means that, were you so inclined, you wouldn't necessarily waste your vote by voting for a woman and can then transfer it onto your preferred candidate if she loses ( or wins). If there was a tendency for women to vote for women then the parties would naturally pick women for some of the positions they expected to win. That hasn't happened.

it also means that a popular male candidate not selected by his party can still run as an idependent and take votes.

More importantly the government shouldn't be telling the parties, who are civil organisations, who exactly they can put up for election. That's arse over tit -- we choose the government they don't choose our parties.

We have nothing to learn from European countries and quotas. Firstly we are a longer running democracy than most of them, and secondly we subscribe to a modified version of constituency representation similar to the westminister elections with the addition of the single transferable vote. The list system wouldn't catch on here

Carlos Orange

joe_six_cans wrote: »

id be interested in a source for that too , i do know that single women under thirty five earn more than their male counterparts on average and that the recession effected male workers more negatively , makes sense of course as the construction sector saw the biggest decline and it was overwhelmingly male

Unemployment statistics are strange things in a lot of ways. I remember reading that France has more unemployed people and more employed people per capita than the US. Not a zero sum game at all.

Still men are 40% more likely to be unemployed in Ireland than women.

feargale

I doubt that government funded gender quotas, or rather financial victimisation of parties which refuse to gendermander, would survive a constitutional challenge. But who to challenge this manipulation of the democratic process? None of the parties will have the guts to do it, maybe a candidate who has lost out.