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?

1…457910

Comments

  • #182
    starling.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 103 ✭✭starling.


    trishasaffron wrote: »
    I agree with OP. IB has almost all the credentials that would make me vote for her - female, youngish, articulate, radical with a bit of pragmatism........
    But I can't vote for her.............she just seems to have coasted along into politics. If instead of being appointed to the Senate she had actually gone and got a job - set up a business - wrote a novel ....................something tangible and specific. But maybe she's being held to a higher standard cos she's a woman?

    In any event if she wants a career as a TD she's got to go and do something different. No more Directorships or cushy jobs - take on something diffilcut without trading on her connections and then I'll vote for her.


    Actually she has written several books, including this and this.
    As a young candidate who would have battled for the rights of minorities in the Dáil it is a great pity that she wasn't elected. She lost out badly by being made to run in Dún Laoghaire, where she had an uphill battle running alongside Eamon Gilmore and fellow-lefty Richard Boyd-Barrett.
    Yes, she is an academic, but imo the Dáil needs more principled, intelligent people in it.


  • #183
    purple_hatstand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 441 ✭✭purple_hatstand


    mgmt wrote: »
    Our system is more equal. It gave equal opportunities to both men and women.

    I think there are a couple of important (and related) points being missed here.

    For gender equality to be successful,

    1). In the first place there must be a widespread realisation among the society that it is unequal with regards to gender....

    2)....and there must then follow a widespread belief in the society that greater gender equality would benefit the whole of society....

    If a society collectively starts from these two fundamental positions, gender equality will happen organically (albeit slowly) and mechanisms like quotas can be used as a catalyst (or not at all).

    I do not necessarily agree with every stance Ivana Bacik has ever taken but I do believe that raising awareness of gender equality issues is part of a way to get the society to the stage of realisation (point 1, above).

    It would seem from some of the muddle-headed commentary here that we are still some way from this...

    Sweden's society, on the other hand, had points 1 & 2 covered in the mid-70's. This is why they have a more equal society than ours - not quotas.


  • #184
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    mgmt wrote: »
    Phrasing it differently does not change the fact that it is unfair and undemocratic.

    Youd ont even know the type of quota system beiong proposed teherfore your assertions are ill informed.

    The point you keep missing is that quota systems apply to men and woman. It is not unfair: more of the electorate will be represented.


  • #185
    mgmt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    T runner wrote: »
    Youd ont even know the type of quota system beiong proposed teherfore your assertions are ill informed.

    The point you keep missing is that quota systems apply to men and woman. It is not unfair: more of the electorate will be represented.

    What???

    You mentioned a type of gender quota system and I provided the definition for that system. You're just creating strawmen.


  • #186
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    RJGMovie wrote: »
    The sound of an extreme feminist if I ever heard one.

    I was referring to a post which personally insulted a female politician as a means to arguing. That is not how adults behave. My descriptionw as quite apt.

    I would regard myself as a feminist although im a male. (dont get too confused now)


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    um7y1h83ge06nx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,029 ✭✭✭um7y1h83ge06nx


    Maybe it's better to say that we should remove as many barriers to entry as possible for members of a group to enter politics.

    Most professions for example don't have any barriers to entry based on sex, but they may have very disproportionate numbers of men of women in the profession. For example:

    A lot more women in Primary Teaching than men.
    A lot more men in I.T. than women.

    Both the above professions typically (yes there are exceptions but I'm trying to keep it simple) require a degree. Once you have the adequate CAO points and entry requirements you're in.

    So I guess the big question regarding women in politics is whether or not it is barriers that result in low numbers of women in politics or whether women generally don't want a career in politics.


  • #188
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    mgmt wrote: »
    What???

    You mentioned a type of gender quota system and I provided the definition for that system. You're just creating strawmen.

    You referenced an article about quotas in general. Which quota system doe you disagree witha nd why? Is that teh quota system being proposed for Ireland?


  • #189
    donfers
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,006 ✭✭✭donfers


    delighted she wasn't elected, there is nothing more repugnant in politics than a liberal fascist, at least the right-wing fascists seem to have some kind of shame and awareness of their warped belief-systems

    chasing offense at every corner and screaming mosogynist at anyone who disagrees, their whole campaigning tactics seem to be derived from Senator Joe McCarthy......long may she and her kind go unelected and mocked until their narrow bigoted worldview expands beyond their paradoxical interpretation of equality (which seems to come straight from the pages of Animal Farm)


  • #190
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    T runner wrote: »




    Wrong, it is ludicrous that primary child rearers should go to jail for minor crimes leaving tehir children to services.




    .


    Read what you wrote. You are saying that being a mother saves you from going to jail because you are a mother and frees you to commit minor crimes with little prospect of being punished. That is a ridiculous argument.

    To me, a mother who commits a crime (that would carry a potential prison sentence for a male), who therefore risks being separated from her child has declared herself by her own actions not fit to be a primary caregiver. In such cases the courts should immediately make the child a ward of the state or give the father sole custody in the best interests of the child.


  • #191
    mgmt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    T runner wrote: »
    You referenced an article about quotas in general. Which quota system doe you disagree witha nd why? Is that teh quota system being proposed for Ireland?

    No. You mentioned gender neutral quotas. I gave a definition for gender neutral quotas. I disagree with all gender quotas because they are undemocratic.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    Aiden Freezing Jelly wrote: »
    Maybe it's better to say that we should remove as many barriers to entry as possible for members of a group to enter politics.

    Most professions for example don't have any barriers to entry based on sex, but they may have very disproportionate numbers of men of women in the profession. For example:

    A lot more women in Primary Teaching than men.
    A lot more men in I.T. than women.

    Both the above professions typically (yes there are exceptions but I'm trying to keep it simple) require a degree. Once you have the adequate CAO points and entry requirements you're in.

    So I guess the big question regarding women in politics is whether or not it is barriers that result in low numbers of women in politics or whether women generally don't want a career in politics.

    But women seem to want careers in politics in other countries. What is peculiar about Irish politics?

    Some examples:


    TD's must work unusually long hours. Meetings always late so unconducive for child care.

    3 Dail days are long days (12 hrs plus.) This is for time to allow the lads back to concentarte on electioneering (parish pump). Again unconducive to child care for men or women interested in part time child rearing.

    Child caring in Ireland is a disaster. Difficult to get/afford cover even if the above barriers can be overcome.


    It costs money to be a politician, make a name. Women earn significantly leass tahn men. Men own the vast majority of wealth

    As women in the vast majority of cases are teh child rearers then these barriers above apply top them more than men. They do apply to some men who area lso excluded thus from politics. That means that few of our politicians have expwerience with childrens issues with the predicteable disastrous results.

    Women who do decide to make a career in politics after childrearing, must start at an older age. This means that they are at a huge disadvantage to men who have been in politics for years. They are behind in building tehir profile. It is no surprise taht most women in the last Dail were related to or married to an ex TD and occupied this seat (obly way to build profile).

    The conventions for candidate selection or basically agressive shouting matches, evolved out of a male-dominated 19th century political system.

    Women by and large do not feel comfortable in this aggressive environment. A candidate should be selected on their potential as a TD NOT on their agression.





    These are just some barriers in Irish politics. If you remove them then talk about women not WANTING to enter politics.

    Otherwise ask yourself if not by gender quotas how on earth will these barriers be removed. And why have they not been removed to date???


  • #193
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    mgmt wrote: »
    No. You mentioned gender neutral quotas. I gave a definition for gender neutral quotas. I disagree with all gender quotas because they are undemocratic.


    Almosta ll quotas are gender neutral. You stated that quotas were discriminatory against men. I pointed out that they are gender neutral.

    But constituencies are also undemocratic by your definition. Why dont you ahve a problem with them?

    An excellent candidate for teh Dail must get elected in his local constituency. He/she may be better than 60 other candidates in teh dail but may not get eklected becuase of the geographical quota system. Surely this is also undemocratic?


  • #194
    maggy_thatcher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,056 ✭✭✭maggy_thatcher


    T runner wrote: »
    An excellent candidate for teh Dail must get elected in his local constituency. He/she may be better than 60 other candidates in teh dail but may not get eklected becuase of the geographical quota system. Surely this is also undemocratic?

    As was demonstrated by Ms. Bacik -- if there is no space in a particular constituency, you can always parachute in to a different one. Switching gender is a little harder!


  • #195
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    Godge wrote: »
    Read what you wrote. You are saying that being a mother saves you from going to jail because you are a mother and frees you to commit minor crimes with little prospect of being punished. That is a ridiculous argument.

    To me, a mother who commits a crime (that would carry a potential prison sentence for a male), who therefore risks being separated from her child has declared herself by her own actions not fit to be a primary caregiver. In such cases the courts should immediately make the child a ward of the state or give the father sole custody in the best interests of the child.

    Stop arguing against strawmans.

    I am saying that a primary child carer who commits a minor crime should not go to jail. E.G If the primary child carer fails to pay a debt under court order they are liable to be jailed. Having a child seperated from its primarly carer for this or a sinilarly minor offence is ludicrous. It is not in the childs interest and it is not in the State's interest.


  • #196
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    *sigh*
    Not all women care solely about child rearing. Very young women for instance, or those whose children have already grown up. You see men (independents) running for election in both of these age brackets, and fewer women.

    I voted for Mary Mitchell O Connor after RBB and Eamonn Gilmore because I support the policies her party puts forward. If RBB was a woman but had the exact same policies as he does now I would have voted exactly the same way. And I'm sure there are many out there who vote purely based on POLICY, and the actual person who they are electing is totally irrelevant.

    The fact is that if you look at independents you have your answer. Women aren't running, even when there are no barriers whatsoever that a man wouldn't also face as an independent. Why is this?
    Could it be that many of them simply don't want to run?

    Find me a women who wants to run as an independent candidate but "can't" for a gender-related reason. I would genuinely love to hear from one because as far as I can see, there aren't any.


  • #197
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    maggy_thatcher wrote: »
    As was demonstrated by Ms. Bacik -- if there is no space in a particular constituency, you can always parachute in to a different one. Switching gender is a little harder!

    Well done. When you cant argue you can always revert to personal insult.


  • #198
    maggy_thatcher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,056 ✭✭✭maggy_thatcher


    T runner wrote: »
    Well done. When you cant argue you can always revert to personal insult.

    In what way did I personally insult anybody?

    You gave an example whereby geographical quotas are discriminatory -- I provided evidence that you could at least work around them, but that you couldn't work around gender quotas, therefore geographical quotas were at least less discriminatory. Personally I'd have no problem with a single 166 seat election, but counting that would be very awkward (see how long it took Wicklow to come back with a result with a mere 24 candidates and 5 seats!)


  • #199
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    *sigh*
    Not all women care solely about child rearing. Very young women for instance, or those whose children have already grown up. You see men (independents) running for election in both of these age brackets, and fewer women.

    But these young women know that they will not be able to bring up a family (only a few years down the road) and maintain a career in politics (unlike the young men). That is why they are not entering. They must still choose between child rearing and politics. And taht is not the same choice taht most men have.

    Most of women who may have been politically minded will not later go into politics. If they go into politics after child rearing then theyw ill be at a huge disadvantage to men who ahve built their profile through all tehse years.

    For thsi reason the average age of women TDs is a lot higher and most women TDs in the last Dail profile was based on a close relationship (daughter, wife) to an ex male TD.
    I voted for Mary Mitchell O Connor after RBB and Eamonn Gilmore because I support the policies her party puts forward. If RBB was a woman but had the exact same policies as he does now I would have voted exactly the same way. And I'm sure there are many out there who vote purely based on POLICY, and the actual person who they are electing is totally irrelevant.

    Maybe thats true.

    The problem is primarily not taht people dont vote for women it is that so few women appear on the ballot box. People should vote based on policy. There are just a dearth of women candidates.


    The fact is that if you look at independents you have your answer. Women aren't running, even when there are no barriers whatsoever that a man wouldn't also face as an independent. Why is this?
    Could it be that many of them simply don't want to run?

    The answer are the 5cs recounted in detail in previous posts.

    Find me a women who wants to run as an independent candidate but "can't" for a gender-related reason. I would genuinely love to hear from one because as far as I can see, there aren't any.


    Ok ill repeat for your benefit:

    TD's must work unusually long hours. Meetings always late so unconducive for child care.

    3 Dail days are long days (12 hrs plus.) This is for time to allow the lads back to concentarte on electioneering (parish pump). Again unconducive to child care for men or women interested in part time child rearing.

    Child caring in Ireland is a disaster. Difficult to get/afford cover even if the above barriers can be overcome.


    It costs money to be a politician, make a name. Women earn significantly leass tahn men. Men own the vast majority of wealth, earn most money in Ireland.

    As women in the vast majority of cases are teh child rearers then these barriers above apply top them more than men. They do apply to some men who area lso excluded thus from politics. That means that few of our politicians have expwerience with childrens issues with the predicteable disastrous results.

    Women who do decide to make a career in politics after childrearing, must start at an older age. This means that they are at a huge disadvantage to men who have been in politics for years. They are behind in building tehir profile. It is no surprise taht most women in the last Dail were related to or married to an ex TD and occupied this seat (obly way to build profile).

    The conventions for candidate selection and parliament are perceived as basically agressive shouting matches, evolved out of a male-dominated 19th century political system.

    Women by and large do not feel comfortable in this aggressive environment. A candidate should be selected on their potential as a TD NOT on their agression.

    As you can see, only one of these barriers (only a sample) could apply exclusively to a member of a political party and not an independednt.


  • #200
    aDeener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,487 ✭✭✭aDeener


    T runner wrote: »
    You see she is advocating a candidacy quota which will have no affect whatsover on the elctorate's right to choose candidates.

    Please get your facts right before you personally attack someone. Better still conduct yourself with dignitya nd cease teh persoanl attack.

    FYI gender quotas are used in 100 countries worldwide. This is not some radical idea invented by Ms Bacik.

    A man argues with dignity and intelligence. A boy uses stupid petty insults to make his arguments. Too many little piss pant boys in this country if you ask me.

    God you are hardly condescending are ya? not a surprise really considering you're a bacik supporter.

    so just because something is implemented in 100 countries makes it right? jesus wept :rolleyes:


  • #201
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    maggy_thatcher wrote: »
    In what way did I personally insult anybody?

    You gave an example whereby geographical quotas are discriminatory -- I provided evidence that you could at least work around them, but that you couldn't work around gender quotas, therefore geographical quotas were at least less discriminatory. Personally I'd have no problem with a single 166 seat election, but counting that would be very awkward (see how long it took Wicklow to come back with a result with a mere 24 candidates and 5 seats!)


    Why on earth would a 166 seat election be based on PR?

    if someone switches constituency they must reside there and still they must only be elected from taht narrow quota. They could still be better than 100 other TDs and still not get elected.

    The female quota is based on 70/30 model. That means that a male candidate will almost never be excluded in an unbiases situation. (if you flick a coin a hundred times, the chances of getting a greater ratio of 70/30 is about 1 in a thosand.

    If teh situation is biased i.e the party is incompetent in removing barriers, then all he has to do is avoid being one of teh worst male candidates in teh country.

    It is only discriminatory where discrimination already exists. It is completely within a partys power to remove discrimination, or to lobby for its removal nationally. If a party is incompetent and puts up a "gender candidate" the electorate will punish it.

    Thus the geographical quota is far more "discriminatory" if taht is actually an apt word.

    If we didnt ahve a geographical quota you would have a situation where 2/3 of TDs were Dublin based. No doubt when country people objected wed here teh familiar "country people just dont want to get into politics" mistruth.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    maggy_thatcher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,056 ✭✭✭maggy_thatcher


    T runner wrote: »
    Why on earth would a 166 seat election be based on PR?
    It wouldn't necessarily - it would be a fully representative government where everybody is equal. I'd actually prefer a 100 seat election, and eliminate 66 seats though.
    T runner wrote: »
    if someone switches constituency they must reside there and still they must only be elected from taht narrow quota. They could still be better than 100 other TDs and still not get elected.
    As proven by Ms. Bacik - you don't have to reside there to run...anybody can run in any constituency (personally I'd rather that there was a 1 year minimum residency requirement before trying to represent people). She didn't move to Dún Laoghaire, she just set up an office and ran there.
    T runner wrote: »
    The female quota is based on 70/30 model. That means that a male candidate will almost never be excluded in an unbiases situation. (if you flick a coin a hundred times, the chances of getting a greater ratio of 70/30 is about 1 in a thosand.
    But it wouldn't be that way. Let's take a simple example -- FG currently have 76-78 TDs. 65-67 of them are male...come the next election, it's only fair that the incumbents are allowed to run again (especially if they're doing a good job), so let's deem them "auto-selected". As a result, at a bare minimum, the next 20 candidates selected must be women under a quota scheme (and for any additional 3 male candidates trying they have to go and find another woman). For any new-entrant trying to run for FG, if they aren't female they may as well give up and try again another time, as gender restrictions are preventing them from running.


  • #203
    Baron_Kunkel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81 ✭✭Baron_Kunkel


    Can we get a Mod in here to clean up this thread. Its not an equality thread or a PR voting thread or a feminism thread.


  • #204
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    The visitor could have requested what she liked (and it's only supposition on your part that she made any such request) - only Bacik and O'Rourke were in a position to decide that it was appropriate to act in such a sexist manner and exclude male legislators from the meeting merely for being male.

    It's equally only supposition that Ivana made the request. The fact that this was a once-off is a serious pointer that the Baroness initiated the request - which may well have decided whether she spoke or not - neither of us knows. so why pretend that the decision was Ivana's? And once again - the fact that the meeting was women-only is not sexist by definition. If the CofI members decided to hold an exclusive meeting, would that be sectarian?

    Trumped up outrage imo.


  • #205
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    T runner wrote: »
    Stop arguing against strawmans.

    I am saying that a primary child carer who commits a minor crime should not go to jail. E.G If the primary child carer fails to pay a debt under court order they are liable to be jailed. Having a child seperated from its primarly carer for this or a sinilarly minor offence is ludicrous. It is not in the childs interest and it is not in the State's interest.


    A legitimate view is that a primary child carer who commits a crime (minor or otherwise) is not fit to be a primary child carer. I stand over that view.

    Language is important in debate. Climate change denier is language used to attack those opposed to climate change and put them in the same position as holocaust deniers. You are using language to cover flaws in your argument. Rather than refer to mother as a synonym for woman, you use the phrase primary child carer instead to hide the fact that you favour discrimination against men.

    To use another example, should a father who is a primary child carer (say a widower so you don't have to conceded that a father should sometimes get custody), go to jail if he is convicted of a minor sexual assault against a woman? Following your logic the answer is no. Following mine, he should go to jail and the child should become a ward of the state.


  • #206
    donfers
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,006 ✭✭✭donfers


    T runner wrote: »
    Women looking for equality does seem to evoke a large amount of hatred in a certain kind of male.

    I think youre world view might be the one that is warped little man.

    you really are showing yourself up to be quite a meanspirited bigoted and embittered little fascist, unable to tolerate the views of others so your resort to petty little digs like "little man" lol - well let me then be candid with you

    you embody everything that is wrong with the "equality" cesspit from which you have emerged hiding under the banner of equality but in reality espousing nothing but a misandrist pc-driven one-eyed and two-bit political philosophy....in short what you stand for is repugnant and pitiful in my opinion and how you put forth your case only strenthens that view

    I am all for equality but not the insidious one-sided anti-equality discriminatroy bollox that you file under equality in your truly warped and polluted mind


  • #207
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    donfers wrote: »
    you really are showing yourself up to be quite a meanspirited bigoted and embittered little fascist, unable to tolerate the views of others so your resort to petty little digs like "little man" lol - well let me then be candid with you

    you embody everything that is wrong with the "equality" cesspit from which you have emerged hiding under the banner of equality but in reality espousing nothing but a misandrist pc-driven one-eyed and two-bit political philosophy....in short what you stand for is repugnant and pitiful in my opinion and how you put forth your case only strenthens that view

    I am all for equality but not the insidious one-sided anti-equality discriminatroy bollox that you file under equality in your truly warped and polluted mind

    Completely out of order. Don't post anything like this again.
    Other posters; behave yourselves. Awful lot of insults and sneers going on in this thread.


  • #208
    purple_hatstand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 441 ✭✭purple_hatstand


    Godge wrote: »
    A legitimate view is that a primary child carer who commits a crime (minor or otherwise) is not fit to be a primary child carer. I stand over that view.

    Language is important in debate. Climate change denier is language used to attack those opposed to climate change and put them in the same position as holocaust deniers. You are using language to cover flaws in your argument. Rather than refer to mother as a synonym for woman, you use the phrase primary child carer instead to hide the fact that you favour discrimination against men.

    To use another example, should a father who is a primary child carer (say a widower so you don't have to conceded that a father should sometimes get custody), go to jail if he is convicted of a minor sexual assault against a woman? Following your logic the answer is no. Following mine, he should go to jail and the child should become a ward of the state.

    I'm sure this is not what was meant by "minor crime" in the post you quoted.

    Sexual assault is a serious offence.

    Most of the Irish prison population (around 60%) is serving sentences of 6 months or less (and the vast majority of that 60% is serving sentences of 3 months or less) for offences like non-payment of fines, TV licenses etc...

    The argument being made is that there is probably a better way to 'punish' people who are found guilty in such cases than putting them in jail. And particularly if they are the primary care-giver because it is not in the best interest of the state or society to go to the trouble and expense of putting someone in jail for 3 months and taking their child into care because of an unpaid TV license. It is also, clearly, not in the best interest of the child.


  • #209
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    alastair wrote: »
    It's equally only supposition that Ivana made the request. The fact that this was a once-off is a serious pointer that the Baroness initiated the request - which may well have decided whether she spoke or not - neither of us knows. so why pretend that the decision was Ivana's?

    It doesn't matter who initiated the request - Bacik and O'Rourke hosted the meeting, it was their joint decision and their responsibility. If the Baroness initiated the request, she should have been refused. By hosting such a meeting they gave the gender-specific aspect of it their endorsement. And, as we have seen, when Senator Bacik was asked directly by Senator Norris why the meeting was for women only, she simply ignored the question.
    alastair wrote: »
    And once again - the fact that the meeting was women-only is not sexist by definition.

    Exclusion of legislators of one gender from a meeting of legislators to discuss penal policy solely on the grounds of their gender and failing to give a reason when directly asked for one isn't sexism? I don't know what is, if that isn't.


  • #210
    Kumejima
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 237 ✭✭Kumejima


    T runner wrote: »
    A man argues with dignity and intelligence. A boy uses stupid petty insults to make his arguments. Too many little piss pant boys in this country if you ask me.


    You might want to read that again T runner.
    If you don't get it the first time, keep at it...


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    It doesn't matter who initiated the request - Bacik and O'Rourke hosted the meeting, it was their joint decision and their responsibility. If the Baroness initiated the request, she should have been refused. By hosting such a meeting they gave the gender-specific aspect of it their endorsement. And, as we have seen, when Senator Bacik was asked directly by Senator Norris why the meeting was for women only, she simply ignored the question.



    Exclusion of legislators of one gender from a meeting of legislators to discuss penal policy solely on the grounds of their gender and failing to give a reason when directly asked for one isn't sexism? I don't know what is, if that isn't.

    Firstly, Ivana didn't ignore the question - she evaded giving a straight answer, which isn't exactly unknown in politics. Perhaps the answer would have embarrased their guest?

    Secondly, an exclusive meeting (of whatever shade) doesn't imply prejudice or malice, even if you don't provide an answer to an enquiry from those not invited - again, would you accuse an exclusive meeting of CofI TDs as sectarian? If not, why accuse this meeting of sexism? I'm betting that Senator Norris wouldn't consider Ivana (or Mary O'Rourke for that matter), 'sexist' on the back of the meeting - he didn't even follow up on the question, so he can't have been that put out.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement