Ivana Bacik. A Failed Political Entity?

megaten · 01-03-2011 09:43PM

T runner I don't know if your posting from an iphone or something similar but please use a spell check. It's hard to read your arguments.

gizmo555 · 01-03-2011 10:30PM

alastair wrote: »

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?

She did. Norris asked her why the meeting was women-only and she didn't answer the question, merely replying that she would brief him separately on the issues if he wished.

alastair wrote: »

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?

It depends on the purpose of the meeting. If it was, say, a prayer meeting, obviously not. If it was to discuss a matter of public policy that all Oireachtas members were concerned with; if the sole reason for excluding other members was their religion; and if on being asked for an explanation none was given - absolutely.

alastair wrote: »

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.

He did:

Senator Norris: I congratulate our colleague, Senator Bacik, on raising the question of whether it is suitable to imprison women for minor offences. I regret male Members of the Houses are not invited to the meeting on this later because it is important that men, who are coequals as legislators, should be involved in these discussions. The overwhelming majority of the prison population is male and an overwhelming element of that population comes from certain inner city districts in our principal cities. I would like that issue examined and not just the rights of women because what is sauce for the gander is also sauce for the goose.

MonkeyDoo · 01-03-2011 10:58PM

Bad week for Ivana, Mary Hanifin comes ahead of her in the election and now her insurance will go up because 'dick' tax in the insurance industry has been abolished.

I paid 1700 euro to get insured as a first time driver when aged 27. While most other girls I know were paying less than 500euro and were able to afford to start driving at an earlier age by a few years thus getting more experience. Never had an accident and am still paying more than women who have had 3 accidents including a write-off because of my male gender!

Sleepy · 02-03-2011 12:25AM

T runner wrote: »

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

Quite a lot of things are peculiar about Irish political: too many parliamentarians, too many local authorities with next to no political power, low political standards. None of which will be fixed by gender quotas or even by having more women in politics.

Some examples:

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

A controversial opinion maybe but don't you think those with the responsibility for running a country should work long hours? Almost every successful person I've ever heard of does. It's one of the key elements of the equation to be successful at anything: talent + effort + time = success.

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.

And that's wrong. Our TD's should be spending 8 - 12 hours, 5 days a week working for us. They're paid like captains of industry, they should work like them.

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

Again, I agree entirely. Childcare should be tax deductible for all parents. It's not a problem exclusive to women though.

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

Because men as a group work longer hours, prioritise work / career more than women as a group and choose to work in the revenue generating sectors of our economy: IT, Pharmaceuticals and Finance.

These sectors are male dominated. Not because they discriminate against women though, in fact, the educational system has been shown to be better focused towards young girls than young boys.

Women, as a demographic, are focusing their academic efforts towards liberal arts subjects and pursuing employment in less well paid positions (admin, teaching, public sector, etc.) that better suit their choice of work/life balance. (It's not just women, by the way, I'm one of many men I know working in a role that affords me a decent work / life balance rather than the financial rewards I could have if I were to spend less time with my family).

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.

Why are women the vast majority of primary child rearers? Because their partners have pursued the more lucrative careers and thus it makes more sense for them to be? Because they chose to marry/have children with men who weren't prepared to be the primary child carer? Because they were unlucky with contraception and chose to keep the child? Or simply because they want to be? Feel free to point out another reason that doesn't have a personal choice at it's root. I can't think of one.

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.

It seems to me that many of our male politicians are only in the seats through inheriting their fathers/uncles/grandfathers too. Those that don't have built their profiles through local activism which has no more barriers

I can't speak knowledgeably about candidate selection meetings as I've never been at one myself but they clearly don't work well looking at how unqualified most of the TD's (both male and female) that have been elected to Dail Eireann are.

That said, given the life of a public representative, it seems to be that a tough personality is a requirement of the job. If someone can't handle a shouting match, how are they going to handle the public smearing they're almost inevitably going to receive in the tabloid media?

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???

The best way to get rid of a wall is to knock it down, not to place a step-ladder in front of it that only one section of society are permitted to use.

The Corinthian · 02-03-2011 02:09AM

T runner wrote: »

The fact that you are referencing unsupported comment means taht theer is NO evidence for your logical jumps.

Actually I cited comments made by her on the record, so you'll find they are supported.

As has been pointed out to you, in custody cases CHILDRENS rights are paramount NOT fathers rights. She is correct in pointing this out.

I'm afraid that's not how it works. Women, for example, have a range of options open to them that protect their interests, regardless of the interests of the child. After all, if the interests of children were so paramount, many women would simply not be allowed to keep them.

She has continually supported issues of gender equality.

Example that does not benefit solely women?

Incidently how are these mens rights groups doing in their pursuit of womens rights?

Why are you avoiding the question of Bacik's involvement in gender equality this way? No one has claimed that mens' rights groups support anyone other than men, however you have claimed that Bacik supports gender equality. Please try not to sidestep the question.

That is an outlandish assumption to make based on the unsubstantiated opinions of John Waters and others with axes to grind.

No, it is a conclusion based upon various examples that have been presented and a complete absence of evidence to the contrary - not an assumption, so please don't resort to glib dismissals.

Looks like she is also right in her assesment of teh self rigteousness of some "fathers rights" activists. She disagrees with them, therefore she is a misandrist.

If that was the only evidence then I certainly would not paint her as a misandrist. Problem is that this was not the only example raise and additionally no one has been able to give an example where she has actively campaigned for mens' rights. That is what points to misandry.

Then please demonstrate cases where she has actively tried to curb mens rights.

Not the question I asked. Please answer the question.

Whatever. I expected you to reduce yoru argument to a personal attack sooner or later.

I didn't attack you, just what you said and frankly it was horrifically sexist and not worthy of respect, and I was not alone in taking you up on it. You cannot come out with offensive statements and hide behind the personal abuse defense when people take offense.

The issue heer is that teh primary carer is almost always teh mother. This is not te mothers fault.

No one is saying that it is the mother's fault. However, if feminism refuses to change this perception, or even defends it, then you can blame feminism for helping to perpetuate it.

Now will you actually answer the question and let us know what men's rights issues Bacik has actually actively campaigned for? There's been plenty of womens' rights issues, but for her to support equality she realistically needs to represent both.

orourkeda · 02-03-2011 02:21AM

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.

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

She's relatively young.

Even CJH took three attempts to get elected to Dail Eireann. I wouldnt give up if I were her

Sully · 02-03-2011 02:52AM

Hearing rumours, but I would assume thats all it is, that she is being lined up for the attorney general role. Just heard it today for the first time but apparently its in a lot of rumblings?

Min · 02-03-2011 09:44AM

She has said she will be running for the seanad.

The political home for mostly failed Dáil candidates.

Godge · 02-03-2011 12:07PM

purple_hatstand wrote: »

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.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0032/sec0002.html#zza32y1990s2

A maximum sentence of five years which means that a lesser sentence (or even a suspended sentence), say six months, could be imposed depending on the nature of the sexual assault.

All I am saying is that you cannot have one rule for men and another rule for women. If there is an argument that a primary care-giver can be spared imprisonment purely because they are a primary care-giver, then following that logic, a male primary care-giver, convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to six months should be spared imprisonment.

Remmeber, my belief, which is that any primary care-giver, that commits a crime (and remember this has to be proved in court) and therefore who has taken the risk of going to jail, who is subsequently sentenced to a time in prison is no longer fit to be a primary care-giver and custody should be transferred, preferably to the other parent, or other direct relations (older sister, grandparent, aunt, uncle), but if none available or suitable, the State. Obviously, at the end of the time in prison, subject to an assessment of likelihood to reoffend, custody can be restored.

Finally, please supply evidence that the majority of prison sentences are for non-payment of fines. You will find that there is a significant number of custodial sentences of short duration for minor assault etc.

gizmo555 · 02-03-2011 12:12PM

Min wrote: »

She has said she will be running for the seanad.

The political home for mostly failed Dáil candidates.

It will be interesting to see how she fares as a party candidate. Last time, she ran as an independent but joined Labour after about two years. The TCD Senate constituency has a tradition of returning non-party senators - I wonder how many of those who voted for her last time wouldn't have done so if they knew she would go on to join Labour. Shane Ross's election to the Dáil will make this a more open race than it has been for some time, so I expect she will be elected anyway.

Incidentally, does anyone know if while she was a Senator she was getting one salary, or both her academic salary and a Senator's salary?

gizmo555 · 02-03-2011 12:17PM

Godge wrote: »

Remmeber, my belief, which is that any primary care-giver, that commits a crime (and remember this has to be proved in court) and therefore who has taken the risk of going to jail, who is subsequently sentenced to a time in prison is no longer fit to be a primary care-giver and custody should be transferred, preferably to the other parent, or other direct relations (older sister, grandparent, aunt, uncle), but if none available or suitable, the State. Obviously, at the end of the time in prison, subject to an assessment of likelihood to reoffend, custody can be restored.

It was mind-boggling that after Norma Cotter was convicted of manslaughter when she slaughtered her husband as he slept with a shotgun, the judge gave as a reason for giving her a relatively light, 3 1/2 year sentence, her responsibility as carer for the children whose father she had killed . . .

irishh_bob · 02-03-2011 12:32PM

MonkeyDoo wrote: »

Bad week for Ivana, Mary Hanifin comes ahead of her in the election and now her insurance will go up because 'dick' tax in the insurance industry has been abolished.

I paid 1700 euro to get insured as a first time driver when aged 27. While most other girls I know were paying less than 500euro and were able to afford to start driving at an earlier age by a few years thus getting more experience. Never had an accident and am still paying more than women who have had 3 accidents including a write-off because of my male gender!

i think the european court ruling yesterday was completley lacking in common sense and yet another example of poliical correctness gone too far , the fact of the matter is that young men are a far higher risk category when it comes to motor accidents and it stands to reason that this age profile should be charged higher insurance premiums accordingly , this equality business is getting out of hand

btw , i also believe young people should be charged less than older people for health insurance premiums as they are a lower risk of ill health

James Jones · 02-03-2011 12:46PM

I'm not sure if Bacik actually knows herself what she wants. She claims to be looking for more females in the Dail but seems to think that this does not apply to ALL women! Irish Times:

“ at one point there were rumblings about the “Female Factor” playing a part in keeping Hanafin in the game. A quick tally soon revealed that Bacik’s votes were not transferring to Hanafin in any great numbers, to the relief of some.
“It’s bad enough losing,” said an Ivana aide. “Helping Hanafin get elected would have been too much to bear.”

The Corinthian · 02-03-2011 12:47PM

Godge wrote: »

If there is an argument that a primary care-giver can be spared imprisonment purely because they are a primary care-giver, then following that logic, a male primary care-giver, convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to six months should be spared imprisonment.

TBH, the arguments that are being presented for lesser custodial sentences for women remind me of the old practice of pleading the belly.

I also do not understand why the child carer argument is used to support lesser custodial sentences for women. Surely it should be used to support lesser custodial sentences for child carers, regardless of gender.

James Jones · 02-03-2011 01:05PM

There is a good example HERE of sparing a mother doing time while imposing a foure year sentence on the father for the exact same crime:

A consultant surgeon who defrauded almost €750,000 from insurance companies through an "evil and nasty" fraudulent breast cancer claim has been jailed for four years.... Judge Patrick McCartan imposed a three-year sentence on Gehan Massoud, which he suspended because he said he didn't want both parents, who have four young daughters, to be jailed at the same time.

Could they not have been jailed at separate times for two years?
Just imagine what its like to have a family law matter dealt with by this judge!!!

purple_hatstand · 02-03-2011 03:17PM

Godge wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0032/sec0002.html#zza32y1990s2

A maximum sentence of five years which means that a lesser sentence (or even a suspended sentence), say six months, could be imposed depending on the nature of the sexual assault.

All I am saying is that you cannot have one rule for men and another rule for women. If there is an argument that a primary care-giver can be spared imprisonment purely because they are a primary care-giver, then following that logic, a male primary care-giver, convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to six months should be spared imprisonment.

Remmeber, my belief, which is that any primary care-giver, that commits a crime (and remember this has to be proved in court) and therefore who has taken the risk of going to jail, who is subsequently sentenced to a time in prison is no longer fit to be a primary care-giver and custody should be transferred, preferably to the other parent, or other direct relations (older sister, grandparent, aunt, uncle), but if none available or suitable, the State. Obviously, at the end of the time in prison, subject to an assessment of likelihood to reoffend, custody can be restored.

Finally, please supply evidence that the majority of prison sentences are for non-payment of fines. You will find that there is a significant number of custodial sentences of short duration for minor assault etc.

Just to clarify (because you seem to have me confused with some kind of lunatic:p):

I did not suggest that persons found guilty of sexual offences or other violent crimes should be exempted from custodial sentences.
I did not suggest that there ought to be different rules for men and women.

Apologies for any lack of clarity regarding the figures I posted. Maybe this is less confusing: 6,681 people were given custodial sentences for non-payment of fines/debts last year (up from 4,806 in 2009; 2,520 in 2008 etc..). There ought to be a better way of 'punishing' these people than putting them in prison. Regardless of gender. Regardless of whether they are a parent and/or primary caregiver.

Figures/info taken from:

http://www.irishprisons.ie
http://www.iprt.ie/contents/1943

aidan24326 · 02-03-2011 04:02PM

To be fair Ivana Bacik has more credentials and more of a record of achievement than a lot of the cosseted career politicians we've had in Leinster House over the years.

hatrickpatrick · 02-03-2011 04:22PM

purple_hatstand wrote: »

I did not suggest that persons found guilty of sexual offences or other violent crimes should be exempted from custodial sentences.

I did not suggest that there ought to be different rules for men and women.

You didn't. Ivana Bacik did. Which is the purpose of this topic.

And BTW, why single out violent crime? If a man would be jailed for a violent crime, why shouldn't a woman? Equality.

What really p*sses me off is the stuff about "Women commit crimes for 'less guilty' reasons than men, such as coming from violent backgrounds, drugs, etc".

HELLO?! Do you think there are no young boys who grow up in broken households and subsequently turn to crime? How about leniency for them, since you're arguing it for women?

hatrickpatrick · 02-03-2011 04:27PM

purple_hatstand wrote: »

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.

No. The argument Bacik is mahing is that there is probably a better way to 'punish' WOMEN who are found guilty in such cases than putting them in jail.

Men who are found guilty of them, on the other hand, can continue to rot in jail cells, since she hasn't mentioned them in her proposals?

THIS is why I have a problem with her.

purple_hatstand · 02-03-2011 05:58PM

Apologies for veering so far OT. I was just trying clarify some misunderstandings.

As for Ivana Bacik - I'm not sure she's saying these things in quite the way you think she is. It seems strange and counter-productive for her to be making those kinds of distinctions.

The Corinthian · 02-03-2011 05:59PM

aidan24326 wrote: »

To be fair Ivana Bacik has more credentials and more of a record of achievement than a lot of the cosseted career politicians we've had in Leinster House over the years.

Well, yes and no. She has a bachelors degree in law from Trinity and a masters from the LSE. She is qualified as a barrister, and has been a junior in a few cases AFAIK, but it's not really her 'bread and butter' occupaton.

Indeed, her rise has been rather meteoric - she was student union president in TCD (a roll she resigned from after it emerged that she had broken her mandated vote in the USI elections) in 1989 - 90. In 1996 she became Reid Professor of Criminal Law in TCD and essentially has remained there, without great change.

Indeed, the appointment to Reid Professor of Criminal Law in TCD is the only thing that might set her apart from many; it has an interesting history as both Mary McAleese and Mary Robinson also were appointed to this position, also when in their twenties.

Does anyone know what the criteria for this position are, because all I have found is some claim that it is "a prestigious appointment made to accomplished lawyers", which is a bit difficult to accept of someone who's only been out of college few years.

This is not to suggest that she has not had many achievements (even those mentioned here are above what most of us manage), however it is also unfair to suggest that she differs greatly to many of the "cosseted career politicians we've had in Leinster House over the years". Not everyone in the Dail is a primary school teacher.

T runner · 02-03-2011 06:35PM

Kumejima wrote: »

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

My argument as a whole has been carried out with dignity, structure and intelligence. Hitting a posters ego who personally attacks women that try to stick up for themselves can be seen in the sense of trying to communicate with this person in a language that he undertsands.

T runner · 02-03-2011 06:36PM

megaten wrote: »

T runner I don't know if your posting from an iphone or something similar but please use a spell check. It's hard to read your arguments.

teh = the

easier now?

T runner · 02-03-2011 06:48PM

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

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.

What are you taking about "auto-selected". What is that?

Are you implying that FG only ran 85 candidates?

Lets say FG bring in a 30% quota now.

They intend to run 200 candidates in 5 years time. That means that 60 of them must be women.

Thye have 5 years to find their 200 good candidates. If they ahve a problem getting women: then they must remove barriers to them. Culture, Education, child care, meeting hours/work hours, cash etc, change aggressive culture of conventions, actively attracy women etc etc.

If they cant remove barriers without national legislation: then they are in a good position to introduce it ie introduce paternity leave, standardise Dail time for TDs, reduce Parish pump time and meetings, introduce adequate child care and a child care culture, raise awareness about gender inequality, promote politics as a career etc

If they dont do the work and cant get 66 women then teh electorate will punish their incompetence.

It is not the case that women "dont like politics" politics affects their lives as much i as mens. It is only the case that women in Irish politics are disgracefully underrepresented.

Johnny Marr · 02-03-2011 06:49PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No. The argument Bacik is mahing is that there is probably a better way to 'punish' WOMEN who are found guilty in such cases than putting them in jail.

Men who are found guilty of them, on the other hand, can continue to rot in jail cells, since she hasn't mentioned them in her proposals?

THIS is why I have a problem with her.

I honestly don't get Bacik's point at times - a feminist view of equality and rights is compltely contridictory.

In fairness Bacik has campaigned for improved prison conditions (esp Mountjoy) for a long time. She's also has said father's should have paternity leave.

But then there are moments of needless partisanship, like her spat with John Walters over father's rights groups a few years ago (quotes mentioned above).

T runner · 02-03-2011 07:04PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

TBH, the arguments that are being presented for lesser custodial sentences for women remind me of the old practice of pleading the belly.

I also do not understand why the child carer argument is used to support lesser custodial sentences for women. Surely it should be used to support lesser custodial sentences for child carers, regardless of gender.

And it is used to promote lesser sentences for primary childcarers.
If you punish the principle child carer for a petty crime you punsih an innocent child.

In 99% of all families where there is one principle child carer it is a female.

This is where some fathers who feel hard done by get confused. It is in the childs interest to remain with the principle child carer. Not becuase that person is a woman or the childs mother but becuase that person is the principle carer.

The courts rule in favour of child carers because most often it is in the childs interest to do so.

This cannot be altered and rightly so. If more fathers want custody of their children then society needs to produce more fathers as principle child carers.

Ironically, this is a far more likely development with people like Ivana Bacik in the Dail than outside.

It is our genderised society which means that one sex owns all land, wealth, and power and the other's role is child care or similar (primary teaching).

It is dissappointing that this shameful state of affairs only irks many Irish men when it seems to work against them.

Men actualy seem to do quite well in court cases. It is very difficult for a woman to deny a man access to children. Even in cases where there has been evidence of domestic violence against the mother and or/children it is difficult to deny access.

Do men really expect to be granted full custody when they are not the principle child carer? How in Gods name is this good for their children?

Johnny Marr · 02-03-2011 07:05PM

gizmo555 wrote: »

It will be interesting to see how she fares as a party candidate. Last time, she ran as an independent but joined Labour after about two years. The TCD Senate constituency has a tradition of returning non-party senators - I wonder how many of those who voted for her last time wouldn't have done so if they knew she would go on to join Labour. Shane Ross's election to the Dáil will make this a more open race than it has been for some time, so I expect she will be elected anyway.

Incidentally, does anyone know if while she was a Senator she was getting one salary, or both her academic salary and a Senator's salary?

I'm fairly certain she hasn't stopped teaching, so I would imagine so. There are quite a few local councillors and buisiness people (eg Fergal Quinn) in the senate, so having another job is fairly normal.

Of course, whether such pluralism is good is another debate.

Although she ran as an 'independent' her affinity with Labour was hardly a secret. Also Shane Ross was a TCD representative while running in elections for Fine Gael for about a 15 years.

Calhoun · 02-03-2011 07:07PM

T runner wrote: »

Thye have 5 years to find their 200 good candidates. If they ahve a problem getting women: then they must remove barriers to them. Culture, Education, child care, meeting hours/work hours, cash etc, change aggressive culture of conventions, actively attracy women etc etc.

If they cant remove barriers without national legislation: then they are in a good position to introduce it ie introduce paternity leave, standardise Dail time for TDs, reduce Parish pump time and meetings, introduce adequate child care and a child care culture, raise awareness about gender inequality, promote politics as a career etc

If they dont do the work and cant get 66 women then teh electorate will punish their incompetence.

Will the electorate really punish them? out of all the issues i could possible punish FG for a gender quota is not one of them.

T runner · 02-03-2011 07:09PM

Johnny Marr wrote: »

I honestly don't get Bacik's point at times - a feminist view of equality and rights is compltely contridictory.

In fairness Bacik has campaigned for improved prison conditions (esp Mountjoy) for a long time. She's also has said father's should have paternity leave.

But then there are moments of needless partisanship, like her spat with John Walters over father's rights groups a few years ago (quotes mentioned above).

John Waters has continually irrationally attacked womans groups throughout the years. He has a chip on his shoulder he needs to lose.

Im sure John has had many spats with womens groups over the years. Concentrate on Baciks policies. Never mind a spat with Waters. Shes allowed to stand up to bullying.

maggy_thatcher · 02-03-2011 07:10PM

T runner wrote: »

What are you taking about "auto-selected". What is that?

Are you implying that FG only ran 85 candidates?

Lets say FG bring in a 30% quota now.

They intend to run 200 candidates in 5 years time. That means that 60 of them must be women.

Thye have 5 years to find their 200 good candidates. If they ahve a problem getting women: then they must remove barriers to them. Culture, Education, child care, meeting hours/work hours, cash etc, change aggressive culture of conventions, actively attracy women etc etc.

If they cant remove barriers without national legislation: then they are in a good position to introduce it ie introduce paternity leave, standardise Dail time for TDs, reduce Parish pump time and meetings, introduce adequate child care and a child care culture, raise awareness about gender inequality, promote politics as a career etc

If they dont do the work and cant get 66 women then teh electorate will punish their incompetence.

It is not the case that women "dont like politics" politics affects their lives as much i as mens. It is only the case that women in Irish politics are disgracefully underrepresented.

I somehow doubt that they'd run 200 candidates! They only ran 104 this time when they are pretty much at their peak. Let's say they run 100 next time for simplicity. This means that 30 of them must be women under quota rules. Let's also assume that everyone who were elected last time want to stay on, and if they do a good job, there's no reason why they can't. This fills up 65 men and 11 women. It leaves 24 spots for new candidates. Under quota rules, this means there are 5 spots for men and 19 for women. As such for any new candidates there is blatant discrimination in favour of women.

Ivana Bacik. A Failed Political Entity?

Comments