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

Ivana Bacik. A Failed Political Entity?

12357…10

Comments

  • #122
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    irishh_bob wrote: »
    mary o rourke is a strong woman with a fine intelect but she was never afraid to show a little of her feminine side and that endeared people to her , bacik is openly hostile to tradition in every form and as a result , will never appeal to a general popolous , shes a humourless academic and thats all she will ever be
    I think this is important to note, because too much emphasis is being placed upon her politics and we tend to forget that people more often than not will vote on the basis that they 'like' a candidate.


  • #123
    Maj Malfunction
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 194 ✭✭Maj Malfunction


    I'm not so sure Ivana Bacik is a failed candidate. Irish politics in general revolves about people voting for the local guy. Parachuting in a candidate into a constituency doesn't work. Ivana Bacik contested the Dublin Central by-election in 2007 as a parachute candidate and was rejected along with Mary Lou McDonald.

    Mary Lou McDonald, rents a house in Cabra (I'm still guessing she doesn't live there) since 2007, is no longer seen as a parachute candidate and gets elected, so +1 to Sinn Fein with their election management.

    Labour parachute Ivana Bacik into Dun Laoghaire and she gets rejected. If anyone has failed, it's Labour and their election strategy, maybe Ivana Bacik's failure was to agree to it? I think she is intelligent and would make a very capable TD, certainly better than the group of school teachers we have in the Dail.


  • #124
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #125
    Kumejima
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 237 ✭✭Kumejima


    Is "girl" an offensive term :confused:


  • #126
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    A very condescending post. Do you dislike women who stand up for themselves?

    I don't, but I do find it exceedingly irritating when they make their gender such an issue, and also seem to believe that in an "equal" society they deserve more praise than a man for the same achievements.

    You know, the "I'm a woman and I got elected, look at me, weeee" type. OR the "I'm a woman, you may despise all of my policies but society is men vs. women so vote for your 'team', will ya?"

    I voted for the people I thought were best for the job, hence Mary Mitchell O Connor got my #3. My problem with self professed "strong" women is that they tend to make such a point of it that it sounds incredibly arrogant. If you actually believe in equality then run for election based on your political positions and what policies you intend to vote against or for whilst you're in the Dail. Telling people to vote for you just because of your gender is ridiculous and makes you come across as the typical "I'm a man/woman therefore I am automatically entitled to X" type, which I'm sure most people would agree is a major blot on your reputation.

    As a guy I voted for Mary Mitchell O Connor number three after Gilmore and Richard Boyd Barrett, I'm delighted that she got elected and I don't for a second believe that as a woman she does not represent me. what matters are policies, not people.
    So why do so many women call themselves "unrepresented" if their TD is a man? Isn't it likely that a man could share your exact policies in terms of the issues facing us? I'd be happy to be represented in Dun Laoghaire by four female TDs if their policies were identical to the TDs we have just elected. It's what politicians DO in power that counts, not who they are. I'd vote for Father Jack #1 if his policies were identical to RBB's. I wouldn't even vote for someone in my own family unless I liked their political positions.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Baron_Kunkel wrote: »
    So what's the consensus? Failure or success? Can we have a few one word responses? I feel its coming down 60% failure 40% success.
    Neither. She only just missed out this time. If the party stick with her and she pays more attention to her/a constituency, she'll get elected in the future.


  • #128
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #129
    gcgirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,044 ✭✭✭gcgirl


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    joeelliott-portrait.jpg


  • #130
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Maj Malfunction wrote: »
    I'm not so sure Ivana Bacik is a failed candidate. Irish politics in general revolves about people voting for the local guy. Parachuting in a candidate into a constituency doesn't work. Ivana Bacik contested the Dublin Central by-election in 2007 as a parachute candidate and was rejected along with Mary Lou McDonald.

    Mary Lou McDonald, rents a house in Cabra (I'm still guessing she doesn't live there) since 2007, is no longer seen as a parachute candidate and gets elected, so +1 to Sinn Fein with their election management.

    Labour parachute Ivana Bacik into Dun Laoghaire and she gets rejected. If anyone has failed, it's Labour and their election strategy, maybe Ivana Bacik's failure was to agree to it?

    Why do apologists for Bacik keep blaming the Labour party for her failures? She could have done as McDonald did, built her profile in Dublin Central and just as importantly built a relationship with the local party members on whom she has to rely to get the vote out for her. It certainly would have given her a better chance than moving between three constituencies in three years. That sort of carry on shows she has no loyalty to either constituency or local party organization and is just interested in her own advancement.
    Maj Malfunction wrote: »
    I think she is intelligent and would make a very capable TD, certainly better than the group of school teachers we have in the Dail.

    She's just a teacher herself, albeit at third level - no better or worse than a school teacher.


  • #131
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    panda100 wrote: »
    I have been to many talks on parenting in Ireland where Bacik has spoken and she has always been very much in favour of equal rights for fathers.

    How does she discriminate against men? She is just pro equality.

    "Prison is harder on women than on men. Women shouldn't be sent to prison. If a woman commits a crime, it is usually because she either had no choice or a man in her life pushed her into it. Women's prisons should be closed down and turned into extra space for male prisons instead. A woman should not be given a custodial sentence even if a man would be for the exact same offence."

    The above is a summary of one of her policy PDFs. It was on her website somewhere before it got taken over by election party stuff.

    Equal rights? You have to take the good and the bad. You can't demand equality where it benefits you and not where you would lose out.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Baron_Kunkel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81 ✭✭Baron_Kunkel


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    It's often said that political careers inevitably end in failure. Ivana's political career is (imo) characterised by failure. That is not to say that she may be successful in the future but I doubt it very much.

    GE2016 will see a probable decline in Labour's vote. There is unlikely to be a wave of positive Labour sentiment driven by anti FF bias in the next election to the extent there was this time and 5 years of difficult economic choices will leave the electorate disillusioned.I can't see Ivana getting a nomination in these circumstances, never mind a seat.

    Comparing her with Mick Wallace (a whole other thread topic) is not comparing like with like. I think that the comparison between MW and IB is being made solely on the results of this election


  • #133
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #134
    Hippo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭Hippo


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Why do apologists for Bacik keep blaming the Labour party for her failures? She could have done as McDonald did, built her profile in Dublin Central and just as importantly built a relationship with the local party members on whom she has to rely to get the vote out for her. It certainly would have given her a better chance than moving between three constituencies in three years. That sort of carry on shows she has no loyalty to either constituency or local party organization and is just interested in her own advancement.

    Events conspired against her within the Labour organisation in Dublin Central and Dublin SE. The 'parachuting' has certainly not been her idea. She would obviously have preferred to remain in a single constituency and build a profile.


  • #135
    outandabout
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 171 ✭✭outandabout


    I don't think she's a failed entity but may have an image problem. She tends to annoy a lot of people for some reason or other.


  • #136
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    As a (male) voter who gave Ivana a number 1 in 2009, I'm rather flummoxed by all the 'man hater' cant. Any time I've met her she's personable, charming, and grounded - and a million miles from the 'Millie Tant' caricature suggested.

    There are ongoing issues for anyone running on the Labour ticket in Dublin Central - the Joe Costello dynasty hasn't got the greatest record of welcoming/supporting any sort of high profile running mate. Dun Laoghaire would have seemed a good fit for Ivana's undoubted liberal platform - parachute or not. Political failure? I don't think so. How many years has Ming been plugging away at a seat? If she plays the long game, she'll come good in the end.


  • #137
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    johngalway wrote: »
    Utter nonsense. It's a personal decision to run for elected office, nothing more than that. People make sacrifices for a lot of things in their lives, running for elected office is no different.

    Utter nonsense? Do you also think that a rate of 4% of representation in Turkey is due to personal decisions made by people there?

    As 99% of women are the primary child carers where there is only one child carer in a family here, the "personal decision" involved in getting into politics in this country seems to involve leaving your children to fend for themselves.

    Having non-sensical late night meetings, non-sensical 3 by 12 hour days in Dail Eireann to attend the parish pump for the other 4, mean that being even a part time parent and politician in this country is hardly possible.

    The age demographic of female TDs shows that they are far older than male TDs when entering politics.

    Another point yopu should be aware of is that there is already a quota system in operation. This quotas the population based on geographical location.

    if this were not there you would have a far larger proportion of TDs from large urban areas. It is simply easier for parties to organise there.

    Places like Leitrim, Roscommon would not have a representative for decades.

    In this situation, a Dublin-centric view point would decree that people in the country were not into politics due to "personal choices" rather tahn obvious disadvantages for country folk tio get into politics.


    Would you agree with the "personal choice" theory then? No? Then why do you make the exact same argument when the viewpoint is male-centric?


  • #138
    Dyr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    T runner wrote: »
    Utter nonsense? Do you also think that a rate of 4% of representation in Turkey is due to personal decisions made by people there?

    As 99% of women are the primary child carers where there is only one child carer in a family here, the "personal decision" involved in getting into politics in this country seems to involve leaving your children to fend for themselves.

    Having non-sensical late night meetings, non-sensical 3 by 12 hour days in Dail Eireann to attend the parish pump for the other 4, mean that being even a part time parent and politician in this country is hardly possible.

    So you're saying that the job of TD is far too demanding for women?


  • #139
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Ivana didn't lose the election because of inadequate childcare, long family-unfriendly meetings, or because she started her political career too late.

    In the immortal words of her party's fomer leader, Frank Cluskey, she didn't get elected because she "didn't get enough votes."


  • #140
    orourkeda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,918 ✭✭✭✭orourkeda


    She was running in one of Irelands most competitive constituencies. There is bound to be a certain level of disappointment on her part but I wouldn't get too downhearted about it if I were her.

    Chances are she will probably get elected at some point.


  • #141
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    ruskin wrote: »
    I for one cannot understand where her seething, viceral hatred of men comes from.

    Wanting equality in Irish society does not equal a seething viceral hatred of men. Can you support your outlandish statement? I thought not.

    Bacik annoys me with her view that there should be a quota for female representation in the Dail-how about a quota to ensure there are so many Dail representatives who are senior citizens, or ethnic minorities?

    If you bothered to actually look into this issue you would get your answer.

    The barriers that prevent women getting into politics also prevent other minorities from same. Quotas will force political parties, government and eventually cultural society to remove these barriers. This has been the case in almost all countries where quotas ahve boon introduced.

    She does herself no favours continually portraying Irish women to be a downtrodden victimized race- any female Irish citizen can put themselves forward for consideration in any election.

    Technically yes, but the barriers for putting themselves forward are far greater. In elections of yore, MPs tended to eb from te landed classes. No doubt they made yoru argumnet that ant citizen "can put themselves forward for consideration".

    It should be ofcourse that membership of a particualr race, religion etc. should not abe a barrier to a citizens oppurtunities for putting themselves forward for consideration.

    Grow up sweetheart

    That sexist, mysoginist comment dictates quite clearly yoru world view i think.


    Back in your Place, Sweetheart!!!!!
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Where? To the best of my knowledge she has shown support for paternity leave, but that's about it - certainly nothing that would negatively affect womens' present monopoly of rights where it comes to children.

    She champions gender equality. Gender is independent of sex.

    Indeed, she's been quite hostile to those campaigning for father's rights in the past.

    "It is strange that this sort of rhetoric is always about 'fathers' rights', never fathers' responsibilities, nor indeed children's rights," she said.

    I think that this is a fair comment in the particular situation. It is childrens rights that the courts must and so consider.

    This is an article by a very bitter John Waters. There is no substantiation for his points. If an article in the Indo is all you can manage, you are indeed clutching at straws.

    Mens groups in these situations should cease focusing their personal attack on woman and their groups. Women will largely try and do what is right by their children. As the courts must. Men need to prove that their argument is in teh best interest of teh child ine each individual case.


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    If issues such as childcare are what are keeping women out of politics, should addressing this, by making childcare gender neutral, not be what needs to be addressed?

    The 5 Cs identified as barriers to women entering politics all need to be addresses. History has proven taht male politicians (the brand we have) will not address these. That is why quotas have been brought in to 100 countries.
    These issues can tehn be addressed in teh dail as well as other issues involving women children and men who want to bring up children.

    The people some of tehse men are trying to pick a fightw itha re actually the people who would make legislation in their favour


    Perhaps we could introduce quotas for child custody to help?

    Child custody issues must be considered on a case by case basis with childrens rights as the unnegotiable core issue.

    Intriducing quotas for women will actually allow more men interested in child rearing into politics to fight for their issues.

    The cureent demographic of middle aged men with full time wives at home with no clue of childrens, womens, mens or social issue
    s arent helping your cause.


    Blowfish wrote: »
    The reason quotas are a bad idea is quite simply that they are based on a false premise. The assumption is that the political parties are inherintly 'all boys club' which prevents female candidates from being put forward.

    False. The 5 Cs prevent women getting into politics.
    If you look at the reality though, .........

    All based on your strawman premise.
    Quite simply, there are less female candidates because (for whatever reason) less females want to run. We should be investigating what those reasons are. Forcing a quota is simply papering over the cracks as it doesn't remove these reasons.

    The reaosns are the 5cs. If youw ant to find out more, google it. It has been investigated here and iat least n teh 100 other countries taht ahve quotas.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Baron_Kunkel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81 ✭✭Baron_Kunkel


    orourkeda wrote: »
    She was running in one of Irelands most competitive constituencies. There is bound to be a certain level of disappointment on her part but I wouldn't get too downhearted about it if I were her.

    Chances are she will probably get elected at some point.

    The chances are that she won't. If she couldn't get in this time it is highly unlikely that she will succeed in GE2016 as there will be an inevitable reduction in Labour's support compared to the election just gone.

    There is only one way for her to get elected in my opinion - contesting a sure labour seat in a by-election.


  • #143
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Ivana didn't lose the election because of inadequate childcare, long family-unfriendly meetings, or because she started her political career too late.

    In the immortal words of her party's fomer leader, Frank Cluskey, she didn't get elected because she "didn't get enough votes."

    Nobody said she lost the votes for those reasons. One of the 5 C's, culture, may have had a part in her not reaching the extra 100 votes that would have seen her through.

    We see plenty of men on this thread accusing her of being a "man hater". Men who dont even know her policies and who dont even understand the quota system they abhor so much.

    These men sheepishly follow the myth of feminsists as being "ice queens", "non-feminine" etc. Thus women who fight for gender equality are painted as un-womanlike. I would regard that quite a lot of men in this country have underlying beliefs about women and their place in our socity taht hopsfully their grand children will be ashamed of.

    BTW Ive meet her once: she is extremely warm and personable. She comes across as intelligent and fair in her analysis and discussion.


  • #144
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    T runner wrote: »
    "It is strange that this sort of rhetoric is always about 'fathers' rights', never fathers' responsibilities, nor indeed children's rights," she said.

    I think that this is a fair comment in the particular situation. It is childrens rights that the courts must and so consider.
    Whether it is fair comment or not is arguable and irrelevant the point I made regardless. What I pointed out, with two examples in this thread, and others have with other examples, is that there is considerable evidence on record to her being anything but friendly twoards fathers' and men's rights in general.

    Some here have defended her by saying that she has, according to them, defended fathers' or men's rights in the past, yet when challanged to supply evidence where she has done this in any meaningful way they fall curiously silent. To date, the closest she has come to defending any male right has been to support paternity leave, and even then only as a means to fulfill responsibility, not a right.

    So in the light of her views on the record it is very, very difficult to conclude that she is anything other than grossly biased in favour of women, if not actively a misandrist.

    If I am wrong, please let me know where she has actively supported fathers' or men's rights in the past?
    Women will largely try and do what is right by their children. As the courts must. Men need to prove that their argument is in teh best interest of teh child ine each individual case.
    This is the kind of sexist crap that we have come to expect; women are assumed to "try and do what is right by their children", while men "need to prove that" they are. Women need not prove anything.

    I'm sorry, but that is simply chauvinistic bigotry and not worthy of any respect.


  • #145
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Baron_Kunkel wrote: »
    The chances are that she won't. If she couldn't get in this time it is highly unlikely that she will succeed in GE2016 as there will be an inevitable reduction in Labour's support compared to the election just gone.

    Youngish, articulate, high profile activism, missed seat by v small margin. I'd say that she's on a pretty good footing for 2016 - regardless of how Labour fare elsewhere.


  • #146
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    Bambi wrote: »
    So you're saying that the job of TD is far too demanding for women?

    Thats it, youve got it in one! Its too demanding for women here (12% representation)! Its even more demanding in TUrkey (4% representation)! And even more demanding again in Iran (0% representation).

    Why did you deliberately mis-interpret my comment? Do you believe that women are less capable than men? Forcing women (ans men) to choose between rearing children and entering politics isonly means taht they have less oppurtunity to enter politics.

    The facts are that male child-rearers are no more capable of entering politics tahn women.

    The only large group that has no problems with the current structure are middle aged, married males with the wife at home, usually farmer, teacher, or if legislation orientated, a solicitor.


    It is not taht the job is too demanding for women: it is that teh only large demographic that can possibly do the job is the one described above.

    Therefore all our politicians are of a similar type, therefore nothing changes.


  • #147
    Thirdfox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,110 ✭✭✭Thirdfox


    T runner wrote: »
    These men sheepishly follow the myth of feminsists as being "ice queens", "non-feminine" etc. Thus women who fight for gender equality are painted as un-womanlike. I would regard that quite a lot of men in this country have underlying beliefs about women and their place in our socity taht hopsfully their grand children will be ashamed of.

    BTW Ive meet her once: she is extremely warm and personable. She comes across as intelligent and fair in her analysis and discussion.

    I will agree that some posters here seem to be on the opposite end of the scale of Bacik and are quite disrespectful/sexist towards women. However it does not change the statements that she has made in regards to prison sentences, ignorance (feigned or otherwise) of spousal abuse on both sides.

    As a former student of hers she is intelligent, articulate and headstrong. But also myopic and unfair/unequal in her treatment of women's issues compared to men's. And I am not stating that she must champion male rights, not at all. But she should not dismiss them laughingly as she did in the lecture hall in front of me. Nothing in my experience of my years of contact with her has changed that opinion. But I will accept that my experience of her could be completely different to others, who knows? I can only state what I've heard from her myself.

    If she is a true feminist, she does feminists a disservice at least in the image that is portrayed. Pro feminism does not equate to trampling or ignoring men's concerns. Hence I've always called myself an equalitist - I'll stand behind measures that promote greater equality. I'm not sure Professor Bacik would.


  • #148
    um7y1h83ge06nx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,029 ✭✭✭um7y1h83ge06nx


    Here's why I dislike Bacik, she's a complete sexist:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70435321&postcount=156

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70439233&postcount=164


  • #149
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Aiden Freezing Jelly wrote: »
    Here's why I dislike Bacik, she's a complete sexist:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70435321&postcount=156

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70439233&postcount=164

    Ehh, I take it that Mary O Rourke is equally 'sexist' then?
    Who decided that the meeting would be women only?
    Why assume it was Ivana?


  • #150
    The Brigadier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,549 ✭✭✭The Brigadier


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    "Prison is harder on women than on men. Women shouldn't be sent to prison. If a woman commits a crime, it is usually because she either had no choice or a man in her life pushed her into it. Women's prisons should be closed down and turned into extra space for male prisons instead. A woman should not be given a custodial sentence even if a man would be for the exact same offence."

    The above is a summary of one of her policy PDFs. It was on her website somewhere before it got taken over by election party stuff.

    Equal rights? You have to take the good and the bad. You can't demand equality where it benefits you and not where you would lose out.

    That is just shocking. I can't believe in 2011 ANYONE could hold such beliefs.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    aDeener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,487 ✭✭✭aDeener


    panda100 wrote: »
    I'm no big fan of her's but I think its unfair to single her out for having no history of achievement in business or public life as very few people running in the elections would have had those.

    She has done excellent work in the equality arena, and that can't be said for many candidates. She's hardly a failed political entity when she just narrowly lost out on winning a seat.

    equality my balls.

    she harps on about choice then seeks to have a quota introduced for female politicians. you couldn't make it up. her downright idiocy knows no bounds. she is disgustingly laughable character and thankfully the people of Dún Laoighre saw sense in rejecting such a clown


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement