Louise O Neill on rape culture.

Widdershins wrote: »

midlandsmissus wrote: »

The person who is very confident in themselves, does not need to keep another down in order to feel important.

Is that why men have to be kept - or brought- down? because certain people are lacking confidence?

Thats what you've said.
As I said, power over anyone else has no place in this world.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

So what do you think about the male dominated government that we have, and the outroar at suggesting a quota. Does that suggest an equal country to you?

Trump's ban of immigrants has stirred a lot of people to see that power and control over people is not ok , and yet I see alot of men sitting comfortably in their position in this country, while power has been taken off someone else.

The person who is very confident in themselves, does not need to keep another down in order to feel important.

A quota is a bad idea, the system -should- go with the best candidate for any given position.

The problem with quotas is that once you introduce a quota based on gender, you then have to introduce one based on race, then sexuality, then whether they are able bodied.
Once you introduce 1 quota, the rest are fair go.

Sure, I'd love to see the Dail filled with all kinds of people, and not just the current brand of stuffy old blokes who are so disconnected from the reality of living in Ireland they may as well be a room full of cats.

But the idea of a forced quota is just as bad, possibly worse, because people would be even more undermined because people would know they got the job because they are -not- a white male.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Thats what you've said.
As I said, power over anyone else has no place in this world.

Power over others will always be in this world. Our entire society is based around this for thousands of years now.

A well qualified, educated and well paid lawyer will have "power" over the bloke who spent his time in school getting high, never studying and got a job in McDonalds for the last 15 years.

Should the poor bloke in McDonalds be abandoned by society? Absolutely not, but it would be crazy to assume the two people are on the same level in society.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Thats what you've said.
As I said, power over anyone else has no place in this world.

What's your vision for a world in which nobody has any power over anyone else? How would that world look?

newport2

Widdershins wrote: »

What's your vision for a world in which nobody has any power over anyone else? How would that world look?

Like a fairly chaotic and dysfunctional utopia.

Sonics2k wrote: »

midlandsmissus wrote: »

So what do you think about the male dominated government that we have, and the outroar at suggesting a quota. Does that suggest an equal country to you?

Trump's ban of immigrants has stirred a lot of people to see that power and control over people is not ok , and yet I see alot of men sitting comfortably in their position in this country, while power has been taken off someone else.

The person who is very confident in themselves, does not need to keep another down in order to feel important.

A quota is a bad idea, the system -should- go with the best candidate for any given position.

The problem with quotas is that once you introduce a quota based on gender, you then have to introduce one based on race, then sexuality, then whether they are able bodied.
Once you introduce 1 quota, the rest are fair go.

Sure, I'd love to see the Dail filled with all kinds of people, and not just the current brand of stuffy old blokes who are so disconnected from the reality of living in Ireland they may as well be a room full of cats.

But the idea of a forced quota is just as bad, possibly worse, because people would be even more undermined because people would know they got the job because they are -not- a white male.

But how is 80-90% of one gender in government a fair position anywhere? In that case - shouldn't there be sanctions, and people saying, 'you are treating the other gender badly, it needs to change'.

newport2 wrote: »

Like a fairly chaotic and dysfunctional utopia.

I'd love to know. I'm not sure if midlandsmissus has thought about it that deeply or that far ahead?

Widdershins wrote: »

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Thats what you've said.
As I said, power over anyone else has no place in this world.

What's your vision for a world in which nobody has any power over anyone else? How would that world look?

Democracy and equality. Do you really think it's that far out of an idea. I wonder why.

py2006

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Democracy and equality. Do you really think it's that far out of an idea. I wonder why.

How can there be democracy in a world without power?

Widdershins wrote: »

newport2 wrote: »

Like a fairly chaotic and dysfunctional utopia.

I'd love to know. I'm not sure if midlandsmissus has thought about it that deeply or that far ahead?

I think the ones traditionally 'powerless' think about it a lot more than the ones traditionally 'powerful', as you don't need to. Why do you think on this thread about Feminism on an Irish board, it is predominantly men speaking? That says more than I can.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Democracy and equality. Do you really think it's that far out of an idea. I wonder why.

Of course, I understood that, but what does that mean in real terms? You know..how would our lives be different, what form would our social structures take, if any ? What changes would need to be made to achieve a world where nobody has power over anyone else?

I'll be back later and hope to hear more about this then!

midlandsmissus wrote: »

But how is 80-90% of one gender in government a fair position anywhere? In that case - shouldn't there be sanctions, and people saying, 'you are treating the other gender badly, it needs to change'.

See, the issue here midlandsmissus, is that those people in Govt were voted in by the people of Ireland.

To enforce a quota, of any kind, goes directly against the democratic process.

Let's make a hypothetical here;
Assuming we're in Cork City so we'll make it easy and say 4 candidates can be voted in.
7 run, 5 of whom are male and 2 are female.

Let's say that by the vote, 4 of the men were voted in. But the quota says the number must be equal, so they give 2 of the places to the 2 women are ran.

Now, it turns out that one of those women got 1% of the overall voting base, because it turns out shes against Abortion for any reason, hates immigrants and refugees, and is basically a right wing nut.

That woman, despite receiving no real votes is now a recognised TD in the State of Ireland.

Now, obviously this is an extreme in terms of her beliefs, but the quota system does work exactly this way and it's terrible.

You want more women in politics, get them to run. I go to weekly meetings down here in Cork and the amount of younger women who show up is dreadful, maybe 2-3 per meeting. Get them to go the meetings and get out there, get known to the party leads, get voted to the councils and work their way up because thats how it works.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why do you think on this thread about Feminism on an Irish board, it is predominantly men speaking? That says more than I can.

How many of the others are men?

I think men comment here because this is as much about attitudes *toward men* as anything else

py2006

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why do you think on this thread about Feminism on an Irish board, it is predominantly men speaking? That says more than I can.

It is about an particular individual with peculiar outlook on life who happens to use the label 'feminist' to justify her notions.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

But how is 80-90% of one gender in government a fair position anywhere? In that case - shouldn't there be sanctions, and people saying, 'you are treating the other gender badly, it needs to change'.

Why are people just defined by their gender though?

The part I am not understanding is why we think that gender is the main defining factor here?

We are talking about running the country so I'm not sure how much of an influence gender has on that.

I understand you'd see an issue where politicians may make decisions that affect women more than they affect men and you are thinking "it should be women making these decisions".

So, abortion rights would be a good one to pick. Would you rather have 50 pro-choice men making the decisions on abortion or would you rather have 50 pro-life women making those decisions?

In that scenario surely "pro life" or "pro choice" is a much bigger factor that "male" or "female".

The same logic would apply to immigration. It would be more important to look at a politicians actual stance on immigration then it would be to look at their genitals.

Grayson

Sonics2k wrote: »

See, the issue here midlandsmissus, is that those people in Govt were voted in by the people of Ireland.

To enforce a quota, of any kind, goes directly against the democratic process.

Let's make a hypothetical here;
Assuming we're in Cork City so we'll make it easy and say 4 candidates can be voted in.
7 run, 5 of whom are male and 2 are female.

Let's say that by the vote, 4 of the men were voted in. But the quota says the number must be equal, so they give 2 of the places to the 2 women are ran.

Now, it turns out that one of those women got 1% of the overall voting base, because it turns out shes against Abortion for any reason, hates immigrants and refugees, and is basically a right wing nut.

That woman, despite receiving no real votes is now a recognised TD in the State of Ireland.

Now, obviously this is an extreme in terms of her beliefs, but the quota system does work exactly this way and it's terrible.

You want more women in politics, get them to run. I go to weekly meetings down here in Cork and the amount of younger women who show up is dreadful, maybe 2-3 per meeting. Get them to go the meetings and get out there, get known to the party leads, get voted to the councils and work their way up because thats how it works.

That's why you put the quota in earlier in the process. You don't enforce it at the ballot, you do it at the local level in the cumman. Make sure a certain amount of women stand in the cumman. That way over time you will find that more and more women are selected to go on the ballot and therefore more will be voted in. The local party will still select the best person to run (well, technically they would but really they'll pick whoever runs the local pub

) and then the people will still have a fair vote. If the man or woman isn't the right person they won't get voted in.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I think the ones traditionally 'powerless' think about it a lot more than the ones traditionally 'powerful', as you don't need to. Why do you think on this thread about Feminism on an Irish board, it is predominantly men speaking? That says more than I can.

I am a feminist. I was raised by two gay women and truly believe men and women are equal.

However, I was raised by 2nd Generation feminists. Not the latest batch of 3rd wave who must go out of their way to seek attention and confirmation of their abilities by blaming every little thing on men because "privilege".

Just because a man is willing to say "Hang on, you can't make a blanket statement that all men are sexist, because that's a really sexist thing to say" doesn't mean they are a secret sexist or think of women as lesser than them.
They most likely say it because when someone is accused of something they do have that right to argue against it.

ivytwine

midlandsmissus wrote: »

But how is 80-90% of one gender in government a fair position anywhere? In that case - shouldn't there be sanctions, and people saying, 'you are treating the other gender badly, it needs to change'.

It's not fair indeed but it is improving. I believe very strongly that quotas are not the answer. I would hate to be in a job and have someone wonder if I'd got there because I was a woman.

What needs to be addressed is why women don't feel able or willing to go into politics. And I think this problem is definitely lessening.

What won't help is telling women they're perpetual victims.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I think the ones traditionally 'powerless' think about it a lot more than the ones traditionally 'powerful', as you don't need to. Why do you think on this thread about Feminism on an Irish board, it is predominantly men speaking? That says more than I can.

Is this about men's attitude towards feminism or your attitude towards men?

If a subset of men are powerful it does not necessarily mean that men are powerful. You've made that distinction but it makes no sense.

You are looking at the government, seeing that it is mostly men, and coming to the conclusion that men are powerful. This is not a correct conclusion.

Grayson wrote: »

That's why you put the quota in earlier in the process. You don't enforce it at the ballot, you do it at the local level in the cumman. Make sure a certain amount of women stand in the cumman. That way over time you will find that more and more women are selected to go on the ballot and therefore more will be voted in. The local party will still select the best person to run (well, technically they would but really they'll pick whoever runs the local pub ) and then the people will still have a fair vote. If the man or woman isn't the right person they won't get voted in.

It's exactly the same problem though.
If a quota is enforced in a democratic system, then the system is not democratic.

You're just doing the swap before the vote is made. Either way, you're putting someone out there for the simple reason they match the quota, despite having a better candidate available.

Next thing you know you've got a discrimination case on your hands because someone wasn't hired because of the totally unimportant matter of what is or is not between their legs.

Grayson

Sonics2k wrote: »

It's exactly the same problem though.
If a quota is enforced in a democratic system, then the system is not democratic.

You're just doing the swap before the vote is made. Either way, you're putting someone out there for the simple reason they match the quota, despite having a better candidate available.

Next thing you know you've got a discrimination case on your hands because someone wasn't hired because of the totally unimportant matter of what is or is not between their legs.

It's not the same. If there are 4 guys running in the cumman you say they have to have say 50% women too. So you end up with 6 people running two of which are women. You don't say that they women have to be elected by the cumman you say that they have to be there. Whoever is best for the party will still get elected by the cumman. And then they will be on the ballot in the normal vote.
Over time this will enable more women to get an opportunity. I'd also say that the cumman should strive for a certain female membership. That's not unusual. I was in the IWA for a while and they had to have a minimum amount of abled and disabled people on local committees. This was to make sure they were inclusive and not a cliquey group. So this way you make sure the local cumman is actually active in trying to make sure that they are more welcoming to women.

Once women get involved then they will be in a position to be qualified when they stand in the local cumman. It's not about forcing women onto a ballot it's about creating a situation where women can get involved in politics and have the opportunity to progress. They won't progress unless they're good but the oppertunity is still there.

And this isn't a slippery slope situation. There's no relation to private sector hiring and the internal workings of a political party.

[Deleted User]

midlandsmissus wrote: »

But how is 80-90% of one gender in government a fair position anywhere? In that case - shouldn't there be sanctions, and people saying, 'you are treating the other gender badly, it needs to change'.

Women have the same success rate as men when they run. Women are over-represented within parties compared to when running as independents (even before the 30% quotas were mooted). How much pandering needs to be done to "encourage" more women to run?

Grayson wrote: »

It's not the same. If there are 4 guys running in the cumman you say they have to have say 50% women too. So you end up with 6 people running two of which are women. You don't say that they women have to be elected by the cumman you say that they have to be there. Whoever is best for the party will still get elected by the cumman. And then they will be on the ballot in the normal vote.
Over time this will enable more women to get an opportunity. I'd also say that the cumman should strive for a certain female membership. That's not unusual. I was in the IWA for a while and they had to have a minimum amount of abled and disabled people on local committees. This was to make sure they were inclusive and not a cliquey group. So this way you make sure the local cumman is actually active in trying to make sure that they are more welcoming to women.

Once women get involved then they will be in a position to be qualified when they stand in the local cumman. It's not about forcing women onto a ballot it's about creating a situation where women can get involved in politics and have the opportunity to progress. They won't progress unless they're good but the oppertunity is still there.

And this isn't a slippery slope situation. There's no relation to private sector hiring and the internal workings of a political party.

Apologies Grayson, I misread your last post and I do agree with your post here.

However, the question posed by midlandsmissus is referring to imposing sanctions against any group which does not adhere to to the quota and that 90% of the current Dail is made up of white males. There are already quite a number of women involved in the cumman who are nominated, and honestly not nearly enough, however as has been seen when they do not get voted in we have people jumping to the "discrimination" angle.

I'd be bloody delighted to see more women in our countries politics, especially considering the hot topic these days is the Abortion debate, but the way of getting women into politics is by encouraging more and more women to get involved directly and not an enforced quota.

Grayson wrote: »

It's not the same. If there are 4 guys running in the cumman you say they have to have say 50% women too. So you end up with 6 people running two of which are women. You don't say that they women have to be elected by the cumman you say that they have to be there. Whoever is best for the party will still get elected by the cumman. And then they will be on the ballot in the normal vote.
Over time this will enable more women to get an opportunity. I'd also say that the cumman should strive for a certain female membership. That's not unusual. I was in the IWA for a while and they had to have a minimum amount of abled and disabled people on local committees. This was to make sure they were inclusive and not a cliquey group. So this way you make sure the local cumman is actually active in trying to make sure that they are more welcoming to women.

Once women get involved then they will be in a position to be qualified when they stand in the local cumman. It's not about forcing women onto a ballot it's about creating a situation where women can get involved in politics and have the opportunity to progress. They won't progress unless they're good but the oppertunity is still there.

And this isn't a slippery slope situation. There's no relation to private sector hiring and the internal workings of a political party.

In this scenario we have 4 people running who I assume have enough support to even feel confident enough to run? Then we are forcing 2 women into the mix who would not otherwise be running and we are doing that just because they are women.

In that case we are forcing the voter base to divide between 6 candidates instead of 4 and so we are maybe influencing the outcome? I don't know.

Why would the quota just be all about "Men" and "Women"? Who decided this?

I feel like there are larger differences based on culture and/or race than there are based on gender. The average Chinese woman probably identifies more with the average Chinese man than she would with the average Irish woman.

You could look at money as another potential area where commonality between men and women on the basis of wealth could be more prominent than commonality between poor folks and rich folks on the basis of gender.