Ivana Bacik. A Failed Political Entity?

James Jones · 02-03-2011 07:42PM

T runner wrote: »

Men actualy seem to do quite well in court cases.

Reference please given that maintenance hearings nearly always go against fathers and favour mothers. The rumours and anecdotal evidence that we have all heard about the family law courts being unfair to fathers has been recently supported by THIS REPORT. Check out page 55 which shows that other than the ones that were adjourned, 100% of maintenance hearings were in favour of the mother regardless of who brought the case to Court

T runner wrote: »

It is very difficult for a woman to deny a man access to children.

Reference please

T runner wrote: »

Even in cases where there has been evidence of domestic violence against the mother and or/children it is difficult to deny access.

Reference please

T runner wrote: »

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?

Men generally seek JOINT CUSTODY and are generally granted this but only realise afterwards that its not exactly what it says on the tin, as it generally includes the rider “with main care and residence to the mother”. What irks most fathers, and rightly so, is that their children's right to have them act as Guardian JOINTLY with the mother is generally ignored like HERE and HERE

T runner wrote: »

John Waters has continually irrationally attacked womans groups throughout the years. .

Reference please as anything I have read by the man has been quite rational.

James Jones · 02-03-2011 07:50PM

The link is HERE

gizmo555 · 02-03-2011 08:17PM

Johnny Marr wrote: »

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.

Apparently it is normal, according to this report in the Indo last year:

ALMOST half of the country's senators are double jobbing at a time when the costly Seanad is under sustained attack, new figures reveal.

Of the 60 senators earning a basic salary of €70,000 plus expenses, 26 are boosting their incomes with part-time and occasional work.

They are engaging in side-line work as lecturers, barristers, psychologists, solicitors, farmers, auctioneers, musicians, restaurateurs, hoteliers, consultants, journalists, retailers, board members and GPs.

Just goes to show what a waste of space the whole thing is - they're getting a generous full-time salary and expenses for what is self-evidently a part-time job.

gizmo555 · 02-03-2011 08:20PM

T runner wrote: »

My argument as a whole has been carried out with dignity, structure and intelligence.

Not really for you to judge, to be honest. Nemo iudex in causa sua as the learned Reid Professor of Criminal Law might say.

T runner wrote: »

teh = the

easier now?

Yes, I'm struck by the dignity, structure and intelligence there, alright.

Centaur · 02-03-2011 10:56PM

I agree with T runner regarding gender quotas. It seems to me that there are two basic arguments against the introduction of them. One is that if you introduce them for women then why not have them for other categories such as race, religion, age etc. The second one is that to introduce them would be to interfere with the democratic process. Indeed, in a survey last year of sitting women TD’s, many of them said they would be against quotas. This is an understandable point of view. It would challenge the idea that they got there on merit and perhaps undermine them. However it is an inescapable fact that woman are severely underrepresented in Irish politics. In the new Dáil, just 25 out of 166 TD’s are women.
With regards to the first reason for not introducing them I will make a couple of points. Firstly, that for almost any category you care to mention they are populated in equal numbers by men and women. Secondly, and more importantly, there is nothing that defines you more from cradle to the grave than gender. In terms of your position within society and how society treats you, your hopes and expectations, your role as defined by culture and personal preference, gender has the most significant influence. As regards the second objection I would argue that it is already undemocratic that effectively 50% of the population are not properly represented. Being a TD is not just about doing a job. Our elected representatives should reflect the electorate. Patently this is not the case.

Thirdfox · 02-03-2011 11:06PM

I don't know why the mods haven't separated the PR, quotas etc issue from the main thread (I've reported the issue already).

Seeing as this is the case - I'll contribute my opinion on the quota issue. If our elected representatives have to represent the exact make up of our society, where are the disabled TDs, the Polish TDs etc etc? It will be impossible to have a quota for every possible criteria (sex, race, disablility, traveller status, sexual orientation, age - these are all covered by non-discrimination legislation). How many Traveller TDs do we have in the Dail?

On the other hand - I'm not dead set against quotas - if it can be shown that it really is necessary. Keeping an open mind on this issue.

However, this has nothing to do at all with what the OP is talking about...maybe the other posters can make a new thread instead of derailing this one further?

Regards

The Corinthian · 02-03-2011 11:20PM

T runner wrote: »

And it is used to promote lesser sentences for primary childcarers.

The point is that it is not being used to promote lesser sentences for primary child carers, but women. As difficult as it may be for you to conceive of this, but the two are not synonyms.

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

Do you have a source for this 99% figure you have presented here?

Even if this this figure were correct, and I do not believe it to be so, because the proposal targets lenient sentences for women and this would result in:

Male child carers (your alleged 1%) not benefiting and "innocent children suffering".
Childless women benefiting from lenient sentences for crimes.

So as an argument for giving women more lenient sentences, is invalid.

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.

This too is questionable to say the least. It may well not be in the interests of a child to remain with the principle child carer if they are a criminal. Keeping a child in the custody of an antisocial parent can often be against their interests.

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.

Which is a little difficult if society is populated by a system that assumes the mother should be the principle child carer, without proof, and should the father wish this he must prove himself - a prejudice you demonstrated earlier yourself.

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

How? Seriously, at this stage it's getting a little silly - I've repeatedly asked how Bacik has actively campaigned in the interests of men, as opposed to women (which few would deny) and still all I get is vague sound bites about how she would.

Men actualy seem to do quite well in court cases.

This is false and has already been pointed out to you. Family law is notoriously anti-male in Ireland and this is well documented and studied.

Again you will need to let us know where you get your facts.

It is very difficult for a woman to deny a man access to children.

Actually it's very easy. All they do is deny it, even where there is a court order. Men go to jail for not paying maintenance, but court orders on access do not enjoy any enforcement whatsoever.

I think you need to back up some of your claims as you appear to be either mistaken or inventing your facts.

maggy_thatcher · 03-03-2011 11:05AM

Thirdfox wrote: »

If our elected representatives have to represent the exact make up of our society, where are the disabled TDs, the Polish TDs etc etc?

The Polish aren't allowed to be TDs, unless they get Irish citizenship first (in which case can you really call them 'Polish' rather than 'Irish with Polish origins'. "No taxation without representation" doesn't apply to immigrants (they aren't even allowed to vote in national elections presently).

James Jones · 03-03-2011 12:03PM

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

The Polish aren't allowed to be TDs, unless they get Irish citizenship first (in which case can you really call them 'Polish' rather than 'Irish with Polish origins'. "No taxation without representation" doesn't apply to immigrants (they aren't even allowed to vote in national elections presently).

Now, THERE is a group that are not represented properly. Why do we never hear Bacik on about the Polish minority not being allowed to vote instead of bleating on about gender quotas for women?

Gender quotas for women should automatically result in quotas being required for all of the other grounds for discrimination. We would have to have a representative amount of single and separated parents (even though Bertie Ahern, as a separated father did SFA for separated fathers), a representative amount of gays and a representative amount of Transsexual people (a different ground). We would also have to have a representative amount of Travellers and disabled people as well as different religions and obviously something would have to be done for the Polish and other races yet we only ever hear Bacik calling for quotas for women. Obviously, she does not believe equality for all but equality for some.

The Corinthian · 03-03-2011 12:55PM

James Jones wrote: »

Now, THERE is a group that are not represented properly. Why do we never hear Bacik on about the Polish minority not being allowed to vote instead of bleating on about gender quotas for women?

OK, hold on - I think this thread has gone completely off topic.

The thread is on whether Bacik is a failed political entity. Not whether whether quotas for female politicians are a good idea, or whether more lenient sentences for women is acceptable, or whatever.

Whether they are or not is irrelevant, that she is shown to exclusively support such policies for the benefit of one gender over another is the issue, because this contributes to antagonism to her and this, in turn, to lack of support.

That this antagonism exists cannot be denied, this discussion being a case in point, and unfortunately neither can the fact than no one has been able to demonstrate any evidence that the policies she supports are anything other than gynocentric, despite her supporters here repeatedly being asked to demonstrate examples the opposite, as evidence of balanced support of gender equality.

That's the bottom line; not whether these gynocentric are good ideas or not. And it is a bottom line because in perusing exclusively gynocentric policies, she is thus perceived not to represent half of the electorate and thus will lose support not only from the vast bulk of that half, but also from much of the other half that opposes such a biased definition of 'equality'.

So this particular argument is frankly over. We're just going round in circles and being distracted by apologists who are incapable of refuting it.

However, this is only one factor in whether she is a failed political entity or not. Her perceived hubris is also an important consideration, as this turns off many average voters. As does her lack of actual legitimacy in any of the constituencies she has contested.

Yet, what it all comes down to is whether Labour will continue to push for her election in the future, because ultimately she will eventually get elected for at least one term somewhere in the next ten or fifteen years if she keeps running with their support. If dropped, she's most likely finished.

That's the real question. Is the "queen of political correctness" so beloved by the Labour party and their leadership that she will be promoted to ticket after ticket until they wedge her into the Dail? Have they decided it's time for other candidates to get their chance and cut their losses with her? How popular is she really in the party, or is her internal support ebbing away as she is increasingly seen as a liability rather than an asset?

That is what this thread is about. Not about whether she's a femnazi or not. That debate was frankly concluded a while back.

Sponge Bob · 03-03-2011 01:15PM

She is still popular in D4 Champagne Socialist circles. She was even mentioned in my hearing as a potential Attorney General were Gilmore to be Taoiseach. I sniggered at that and so did the Labourite who told me in fairness

um7y1h83ge06nx · 03-03-2011 01:31PM

As regards quotas I bring up my previous examples of Primary Teaching and I.T.

What would happen if we introduced quotas in these professions?

Primary Teaching - males are grossly under represented so introduce a quota for a minimum percentage of males per school. Seeing as the under representation is so great primary teaching would be very, very likely to result in a guaranteed job for a male even if he scraped through college. That could possibly result in lowering the standard of teaching in Ireland. (Some claim that this is already happening on an unofficial basis as the Department want pupils to have more male role models)

I.T. - Just use the same argument above and substitute "male" with "female" etc.

I cannot see the equality in the above examples just blatant positive discrimination.

flowerchild · 05-03-2011 07:05AM

Many party political candidates fail at one election and try again before ultimate (re) election, witness Mary Lou McDonald or Sean Crowe. I don't think that women have an easy ride into parliament and ministries, otherwise their representation would be different than it is.

I don't think that parliament should have quotas for women. It may be important to elect women, but I like to choose to do so rather than be forced to do so.

I also don't support affirmative action within political parties. I do judge parties implicitly on whether they put women into a good proportion of seats, particularly winnable seats. But again, I don't wish to be forced to vote for a female candidate when there may be a male who I consider to be a better feminist.

I like segregated groupings within parties like Women's Conferences and youth wings. I think it lets the participants build connections and skills and then compete more comfortably, if they wish, in the general party and electorate.

iptba · 05-03-2011 07:52PM

I think the media fail the voters on politicians like Ivana Bacik.

Voters should know about the more extreme views of the candidates.
Has she ever be challenged on air about the woman-only meeting of Oireachtas members?

In general, RTE in particular seem to give some feminists an easy ride, they don't act as "devil's advocate"/taking an opposing view during interviews/debates the way they would on many other issues.

Whether you like or loathe her, Ivana has strong views on gender issues. The public should know what she stands for.

iptba · 05-03-2011 07:55PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

If I remember the details correctly, instead of who she was mandated to vote for in the secret ballot, she voted for feminist candidate from another college.

Tragedy · 05-03-2011 08:17PM

iptba wrote: »

If I remember the details correctly, instead of who she was mandated to vote for in the secret ballot, she voted for feminist candidate from another college.

Correct. Nice to see she hasn't changed :pac:

evercloserunion · 05-03-2011 09:27PM

iptba wrote: »

I think the media fail the voters on politicians like Ivana Bacik.

Voters should know about the more extreme views of the candidates.
Has she ever be challenged on air about the woman-only meeting of Oireachtas members?

In general, RTE in particular seem to give some feminists an easy ride, they don't act as "devil's advocate"/taking an opposing view during interviews/debates the way they would on many other issues.

Whether you like or loathe her, Ivana has strong views on gender issues. The public should know what she stands for.

If this thread is anything to go by, then if anything the public has an exaggerated view of her feminist stance.

iptba · 05-03-2011 09:42PM

evercloserunion wrote: »

If this thread is anything to go by, then if anything the public has an exaggerated view of her feminist stance.

I don't think posters to this thread would likely be representative of the population: it would likely attract more people who like her (more than the average politician) (than the percentage one would expect of the general population) and more people who dislike her (more than the average politician).

She emphasised the feminist part when she called herself a socialist and feminist* candidate when standing for Europe in 2004. She's on the Advisory Committee of the (all woman) Centre for Gender and Women's Studies; she has spent a lot of her adult life campaigning on abortion, viewing it as a woman's rights/feminist issue**; etc. She is much more feminist than virtually all other Irish politicians and would certainly seem to be more feminist than any mainstream Irish politicians are masculist***.

* I think the other word was socialist/socialism. I know one of the two words was feminism/feminist

** I don't have strong views on abortion but seems relevant to point it out.

*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism

The Corinthian · 06-03-2011 01:52AM

iptba wrote: »

If I remember the details correctly, instead of who she was mandated to vote for in the secret ballot, she voted for feminist candidate from another college.

USI presidential elections (1990).

Delegates from the different consistent colleges would be mandated by the Student Union of their college to vote for a particular candidate - and so TCD SU mandated (via democratic vote) their delegates, of whom as SU president she was one, to vote for what was considered the less 'radical' candidate. This candidate lost, by a vote and so after a bit of maths it was obvious that 2 TCD delegates had broken their mandate. Eventually Bacik was revealed to be one of them (I think the TCD SU welfare officer was the other - could be wrong).

The resulting upset resulted in her losing the position of TCD SU president (can't remember if she resigned or was impeached). Trinity News subsequently published a story on this with the headline "Czech Bounced".

K-9 · 06-03-2011 02:17AM

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.

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?

That's twice you've mentioned:

99% of women are the primary child carers where there is only one child carer in a family here,

Do you have anything to back that up?

K-9 · 06-03-2011 02:24AM

Sorry I see The Corinthian asked that question and it's still awaiting a response.

From Welfare figure fathers made up 15% or so of single parent households, that is my recollection anyway and many were surprised by it. Men are less likely to claim LPA as well so it would be logical to assume the % is higher of working single parents, not claiming LPA.

James Jones · 06-03-2011 04:03AM

K-9 wrote: »

Do you have anything to back that up?

T_runner seems to have done a runner from this thread and doesn't back up what he says with references.

James Jones wrote: »

See post 242

Sponge Bob · 08-03-2011 01:07AM

Oh NOOOOES !! :eek:

Labour are getting a shout at the Attorney Generals job. And that position may well go a woman for the very first time ever but sadly not to their beloved Ivana. The Senate beckons yet again for her. I'd say Gilmore is in for a vituperously inflamed adlashing of tongue if this happens.

Máire R. Whelan is to be the first woman and the first Labour nominated Attorney General (both) say the Times.

gizmo555 · 08-03-2011 12:15PM

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Oh NOOOOES !! :eek:

Labour are getting a shout at the Attorney Generals job. And that position may well go a woman for the very first time ever but sadly not to their beloved Ivana. The Senate beckons yet again for her. I'd say Gilmore is in for a vituperously inflamed adlashing of tongue if this happens.

Máire R. Whelan is to be the first woman and the first Labour nominated Attorney General (both) say the Times.

Labour nominated John Rogers as attorney general to the 1984-1987 coalition government.

(FWIW, the Wikipedia article on Rogers linked to above says that the attorney general is traditionally a Senior Counsel with a number of years experience. If true, that would not favour Bacik's chances - she's not SC.)

The Corinthian · 08-03-2011 01:24PM

gizmo555 wrote: »

(FWIW, the Wikipedia article on Rogers linked to above says that the attorney general is traditionally a Senior Counsel with a number of years experience. If true, that would not favour Bacik's chances - she's not SC.)

My understanding is that a senior council is a barrister who has been at the bar for a number of years; this does not actually mean that they are successful or even that experienced. I've been told that some become a "silk", largely because they are not terribly successful and do so because they can charge, their smaller number of clients, more.

Of course, this does not imply that Rogers or any other SC is like that, but I thought it important to point out that the title or rank not be assumed to be a guarantee of anything.

As to Bacik, my understanding is she has been a junior barrister on a number of cases in the past, but has limited experience in the actual practice of law - she's principally an academic by profession. I'm certainly open to being corrected if this is not the case.

T runner · 08-03-2011 01:45PM

K-9 wrote: »

That's twice you've mentioned:

Do you have anything to back that up?

The figures come from CSO 2009

Control of resources 86% of employers are men: only 3% of managing directors and 21% of senior managers are women
Control of the Means of State Violence: Police and the Army combined are approximately 90% male
Control of Land: 94% of farm holders are men
Lack of security: Almost 80% of part-time workers - those working 19 hours per week or less are women. Almost 33% of all women employed are part-time compared with 8% of men
Unpaid Labour: Less than 1% of persons whose main activity was working managing/caring the home/family were men; 99% were women (UCD School of Social Justice)

The Corinthian · 08-03-2011 01:59PM

T runner wrote: »

Unpaid Labour: Less than 1% of persons whose main activity was working managing/caring the home/family were men; 99% were women (UCD School of Social Justice)

That's not actually the same as:

T runner wrote: »

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.

Primary carers can work for a living, you know; a radical notion no doubt, but it does happen, and more often than you think.

You assertion is based upon full-time homemakers rather than primary carers for children.

So to prove your point you will realistically have to show us figures for custody, not whether they don't hold down a full time job beyond this. Preferably from the CSO figures themselves, rather than the interpretation of any figures by the (dubiously named, IMHO) UCD School of Social Justice.

ISAW · 08-03-2011 02:13PM

T runner wrote: »

The figures come from CSO 2009

Control of resources 86% of employers are men: only 3% of managing directors and 21% of senior managers are women

Women decide to have kids and stay at home when they approach higher levels.
for example Olwyn Enright the TD is married to a TD and she decided to stay at home.

Control of the Means of State Violence: Police and the Army combined are approximately 90% male

ALL i.e. 100 % world record record holders in weightlifting sprinting etc. are male. that are physically stronger. It is more likely in jobs involving brute force that they dominate. Women dominate nursing maybe because they are better at caring. do you think if they represent 90 percent of nurses that 40 per cent should be sacked and the jobs given to men?

Control of Land: 94% of farm holders are men

Farming can be a physical profession but with the advent of machinery women are coming into it more. I would have thought women do as much work on small farms anyway. The problem hers is one of cultural rights of succession and the oldest son getting the land. This is something the British brought us and it didn't exist in Grace O Malley's time. I mean most monarchs are male because of the oldest son rule.

Lack of security: Almost 80% of part-time workers - those working 19 hours per week or less are women.

Maybe because women chose to work in the home if given the option! You can't have tio both ways . You can't have work life balance and then complain about women working part time.

Almost 33% of all women employed are part-time compared with 8% of men
Unpaid Labour: Less than 1% of persons whose main activity was working managing/caring the home/family were men; 99% were women (UCD School of Social Justice)

[/quote]

As a man working in the home I can tell you some women have discriminated against me.
But again you can't have ti both ways. If women are better at caring and men better at fighting isn't it only likely more men will be soldiers and more women carers?

As long as they have equal opportunity to do job they are capable of and equal rights to do things like vote and own a bank account what is the problem. I mean a disabled person in a wheelchair can't be an active soldier either but the disabled don't say "the Army has not got one wheelchair person on active service" do they? If a woman can do the job then let her do it but it is likely more women will want to be with children than men. Maybe the percentages are skewed a bit but the idea of 50/50 everything is just silly.

gizmo555 · 08-03-2011 02:14PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

My understanding is that a senior council is a barrister who has been at the bar for a number of years; this does not actually mean that they are successful or even that experienced. I've been told that some become a "silk", largely because they are not terribly successful and do so because they can charge, their smaller number of clients, more.

According to the Bar Council's website:

Senior Counsel (known as “silks”) are the senior branch of the profession. They are appointed by the Government from the ranks of Junior Counsel. It is a mark of eminence to be appointed Senior Counsel. Senior Counsel are expected to be extensively experienced in the practice of law over many years and to bring a high level of legal knowledge, skill and judgment to any task in which they are professionally engaged.

(Of course, extensive experience is not the same thing as extensive success . . .)

The Corinthian · 08-03-2011 02:21PM

gizmo555 wrote: »

(Of course, extensive experience is not the same thing as extensive success . . .)

Which is what a friend of mine, a barrister, said when discussing the subject of someone they knew who had just become an SC...

OK, sorry, I've dragged the topic totally off. My bad.

Ivana Bacik. A Failed Political Entity?

Comments