Ladies and gentlemen, the first ridiculous consequence of gender quotas

hatrickpatrick · 18-09-2015 3:05am #1

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fianna-fáil-accused-of-gender-mander-in-dublin-constituencies-1.2355968

Fianna Fáil has issued a “gender-mander” diktat in two key Dublin constituencies that direct delegates to select a single female candidate.
Members of the party in Dublin South Central and Dublin Central received a letter last night from the national conventions committee stating it had decided that “one candidate be selected at the convention and that candidate be a woman”.

It is the first time any of the major parties has issued an instruction that a single candidate of a particular gender be selected.
Two male candidates, Daithí de Róiste in Dublin South Central and Brian Mohan in Dublin Central, had put their names forward for convention. Last night both said they were bitterly disappointed and effectively said they had been “gender-mandered” by the powerful committee.

The decisions will pave the way for Catherine Ardagh and Mary Fitzpatrick to be selected as the single candidates in both constituencies.
Mr de Róiste told The Irish Times last night that the decision was undemocratic. He said he had won a council seat in Ballyfermot for Fianna Fáil and had received 60 per cent more first preferences than Ms Ardagh.

Regardless of where one stands, I think most would agree that this is ridiculously undemocratic, particularly considering that the candidate who was rejected solely on the basis of his gender fared far better than the person who was chosen, again solely on the basis of her gender, when they were up against eachother during an election. So in other words, the candidate who is clearly more popular with the electorate is being denied an opportunity to run purely because he was born with the wrong set of chromosomes.

Not only is this massively unfair to those being discriminated against on the basis of gender, it is also highly patronising to those who are given false advantages on the same basis. Would you want to be in a position of being nominated in such a manner, knowing full well that you did not beat your opponent purely on merit but on a technicality?

Horrible precedent. Surprising coming from FF, considering how disastrously they fared in the last election.

Oh and before anyone accuses me of having an anti-women-in-politics agenda with this post, I should point out that Catherine Murphy, Claire Daly and ruth Coppinger are some of my favourite TDs in the current Dail, and Mary Mitchell O'Connor got a #3 from me in a four seat constituency during the last election. :pac:

But this is just balls.

IvanRakitic · 18-09-2015 3:30am

dsigrace

kneemos · 18-09-2015 6:51am

Presumably those constituencies aren't FF and it's a token gesture?
Incredibly unfair anyway and patronising for the women involved.

zeffabelli · 18-09-2015 6:53am

All the egalitarians should be happy.

Dumb but happy.

DoYouEvenLift · 18-09-2015 6:54am

Pathetic. Morons. The government is the foundation of a country. The most suitable candidate with the best credentials deserves the job and gender should simply not even be acknowledged. If this meant we ended up with an all male government or an all female government, so be it. We would still have the strongest candidates in position. These women should feel insulted at this insinuation that they're incapable of reaching these positions without the playing field being levelled in their favour. It's a sad day when our government isn't even reasonable enough to understand this.

Peregrinus · 18-09-2015 6:55am

kneemos wrote: »

Presumably those constituencies aren't FF and it's a token gesture?

No. They are both constituencies in which FF doesn't currently have a seat, but would aspire to win a seat.

Their object is to have (I think) at least 30% of the parliamentary party be women; they plainly won't acheive that object by only nominating women for unwinnable seats. Plus, the men ruled out of contention evidently think the seats are worth contesting.

kneemos · 18-09-2015 7:02am

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. They are both constituencies in which FF doesn't currently have a seat, but would aspire to win a seat.

Their object is to have (I think) at least 30% of the parliamentary party be women; they plainly won't acheive that object by only nominating women for unwinnable seats. Plus, the men ruled out of contention evidently think the seats are worth contesting.

How will they get 30% women if they put forward unpopular candidates?

starling · 18-09-2015 7:05am

I really don't think this is the way to go about addressing the gender imbalance in government, it's unfair to everyone involved IMO. I know there are people who wouldn't vote for a woman, but I hardly see how this is going to change their minds. I think it'll have the opposite effect or at least confirm their belief that sexism is a thing of the past and if anyone it's the poor menz who are the victims.

Amirani · 18-09-2015 7:08am

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. They are both constituencies in which FF doesn't currently have a seat, but would aspire to win a seat.

Their object is to have (I think) at least 30% of the parliamentary party be women; they plainly won't acheive that object by only nominating women for unwinnable seats. Plus, the men ruled out of contention evidently think the seats are worth contesting.

It's 30% of candidates as women, not 30% of elected officials.

nullzero · 18-09-2015 7:21am

Sweetpotato Burrito wrote: »

in Ireland men typically are the victims of sexism. There are laws that discriminate against men but none against women that I know of, the courts punish men much more harshly for the same crime too.

Don't go throwing your facts around in this debate.

OneOfThem · 18-09-2015 7:28am

What percentage of the parliamentary party are they endeavouring to ensure are black?
What? There will be no such policy?

Racists! Hey! Everyone grab a broom! Fianna Fail (here to for to be known as The Irish National Socialist Party) are racists!

18-09-2015 7:32am

Sweetpotato Burrito wrote: »

in Ireland men typically are the victims of sexism. There are laws that discriminate against men but none against women that I know of, the courts punish men much more harshly for the same crime too.

Really? Take fines handed out for road traffic offences, what's the average difference?

And is treating men and women differently really unique to Ireland? And solely the result of discrimination? Say, in other cases, like assault, is it not common through many countries and more likely to be explained by the very very very very obvious fact that assaults by men may be more violent or have more severe consequences, not too many women will go down for one punch laws. Or even that there are other very very very very obvious factors, like women minding children so making them less suitable for imprisonment?

Ignatius in bloom · 18-09-2015 7:39am

Deleted User wrote: »

Really? Take fines handed out for road traffic offences, what's the average difference?

And is treating men and women differently really unique to Ireland? And solely the result of discrimination? Say, in other cases, like assault, is it not common through many countries and more likely to be explained by the very very very very obvious fact that assaults by men may be more violent or have more severe consequences, not too many women will go down for one punch laws. Or even that there are other very very very very obvious factors, like women minding children so making them less suitable for imprisonment?

I mind children and i hit like a poodle. I should be treated differently if i decide to use a hammer on someones nut so.

frostyjacks · 18-09-2015 7:39am

This is just typical of the way the country is going. We should pick people based on merit, not their gender, sexuality or skin colour.

Ignatius in bloom · 18-09-2015 7:44am

frostyjacks wrote: »

This is just typical of the way the country is going. We should pick people based on merit, not their gender, sexuality or skin colour.

Not sure the whole merit thing works as for the rest? not to many stunners of either gender walking around government buildings.

Clearlier · 18-09-2015 7:44am

Fine Gael did this for the last election

18-09-2015 7:50am

Ignatius in bloom wrote: »

I mind children and i hit like a poodle. I should be treated differently if i decide to use a hammer on someones nut so.

Well, if your punches land like feathers causing no consequence, and if you are minding a shot of kids, rather obviously you should be treated differently to the person with no responsibilities who breaks a jaw and eye socket with 2 punches.

Isn't that very very very very obvious?

Ignatius in bloom · 18-09-2015 7:53am

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, if your punches land like feathers causing no consequence, and if you are minding a shot of kids, rather obviously you should be treated differently to the person with no responsibilities who breaks a jaw and eye socket with 2 punches.

Isn't that very very very very obvious?

Yeah well thats why i had the hammer.

Massimo Cassagrande · 18-09-2015 8:00am

I for one am stunned surprised and shocked..ish..by the fact FF decided to impose their gender-mandering onto a seat where none of their Big Dogs happened to be standing for election...

"I'm sorry Sean, but it has to be a female..." Mr Fleming stalks off in a huff..

18-09-2015 8:03am

Ignatius in bloom wrote: »

Yeah well thats why i had the hammer.

Ah, sorry, didn't get the "hammer a nut" reference meant a literal hammer on a metaphorical head.

If the actions cause the exact same consequences, they should be treated the same. But consequences also include those for the children of the accused. Obviously a person who is not in loco parentis is more liable to face a jail sentence. This really hardly needs to be explained, it's common sense.

18-09-2015 8:05am

Sweetpotato Burrito wrote: »

From what I've read on the subject women receive more lenient treatment by the courts in most first world countries.

This isn't the only discrimation that's been seen in numerous studies, good looking people receive more lenient treatment also all things equal.

Good, so you've already moved on from the first two words of your last post...

Sweetpotato Burrito wrote: »

in Ireland men typically are the victims of sexism. There are laws that discriminate against men but none against women that I know of, the courts punish men much more harshly for the same crime too.

Now, consider this, now you accept it's more than just Ireland, is it also possible that it can be explained by more than just discrimination? There really may be valid reasons for distinguishing men and women which is why courts all over the world do it.

Ignatius in bloom · 18-09-2015 8:07am

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, sorry, didn't get the "hammer a nut" reference meant a literal hammer on a metaphorical head.

If the actions cause the exact same consequences, they should be treated the same. But consequences also include those for the children of the accused. Obviously a person who is not in loco parentis is more liable to face a jail sentence. This really hardly needs to be explained, it's common sense.

Its true. When reading comics and the baddies get jail time I'm often thinking of only you had a couple of kids you would have got a much lighter sentence.

18-09-2015 8:25am

Ignatius in bloom wrote: »

Its true. When reading comics and the baddies get jail time I'm often thinking of only you had a couple of kids you would have got a much lighter sentence.

I guess that's why comics are never a particularly good analysis of the factors that may influence a Court in fixing a jail sentence.

Because it's very obvious in jail sentences that children may be a factor, I asked the person who raised the issue to specify the difference in road traffic fines.

looksee · 18-09-2015 8:26am

Leaving aside all the irrelevant stuff about jail sentences, I do not believe that there should be gender quotas in any situation where merit is more important. In spite of a tendency for a male to (still) be a default choice, women should make it on merit.

suicide_circus · 18-09-2015 8:47am

This is what gender quotas look like. If anyone would care to justify this dictionary definition of sexism, I'm all ears.

meeeeh · 18-09-2015 8:58am

It's quotas who to put on the ticket ffs. In a lot of other countries parties just put people on the list without any election of candidates. After all you are still electing a party, if those boys are so popular they can easily run as independents.

Ignatius in bloom · 18-09-2015 8:58am

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess that's why comics are never a particularly good analysis of the factors that may influence a Court in fixing a jail sentence.

Because it's very obvious in jail sentences that children may be a factor, I asked the person who raised the issue to specify the difference in road traffic fines.

I think its quite ridiculous that a person could hide behind their children after the fact and a court would take this into consideration and yes i know it happens and it also happens with young offenders hiding behind their upbringing and social decline based on that but behind all that gunk is usually a victim and they are the ones society should be protecting but as we see countless times this is not the case.

Pat Mustard · 18-09-2015 9:18am

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. They are both constituencies in which FF doesn't currently have a seat, but would aspire to win a seat.

Their object is to have (I think) at least 30% of the parliamentary party be women; they plainly won't acheive that object by only nominating women for unwinnable seats. Plus, the men ruled out of contention evidently think the seats are worth contesting.

I was speaking to a Fianna Fáil supporter recently. He told me that there is EU funding for the political parties, which is conditional upon the implementation of gender quotas in the nomination of candidates.

What he also offered was that where candidates had to be selected on the basis of gender rather than ability or popularity, it was likely that such candidates would be chosen to run in constituencies where FF wouldn't have much of a chance anyway.

FF is prepared to pay lip service to this gender quota idea in order to get funding.

Dirty Dingus McGee · 18-09-2015 9:18am

Surely all male candidates being pushed aside need to do is say they are gender fluid and therefore they couldn't be excluded from being on the ballot in any constituency.

Badly Drunk Boy · 18-09-2015 9:20am

Are there any gender-fluid candidates in the running?

Edit: Or what Dirty Dingus McGee said...

Daith · 18-09-2015 9:24am

Pat Mustard wrote: »

FF is prepared to pay lip service to this gender quota idea in order to get funding.

Exactly. They can run whatever candidates they want. They're choosing funding over them though.

Deirdre Heney defeated Sean Haughey at the selection process and FF added him anyway. It works both ways for those crying about sexism.

Potatoeman · 18-09-2015 9:34am

zeffabelli wrote: »

All the egalitarians should be happy.

Dumb but happy.

Egalitarians would for equal opportunity not equality of result. Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

Chips Lovell · 18-09-2015 9:34am

Storm in a teacup.

Party HQs (and not just Fianna Fail's) have frequently overruled local organisations on choice and number of candidates. The only difference this time is that the gender quota is part of the equation.

FF can of course ignore the quota and field an entire slate of men if they want to, but won't get as much public funding.

Quota is only 30 percent. I'd find it hard to have sympathy for any party who can't manage to find that number of female candidates.

Daith · 18-09-2015 9:41am

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Quota is only 30 percent. I'd find it hard to have sympathy for any party who can't manage to find that number of female candidates.

They've always had same sex issues....

suicide_circus · 18-09-2015 10:08am

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Quota is only 30 percent. I'd find it hard to have sympathy for any party who can't manage to find that number of female candidates.

Maybe, just maybe it's not the party's "fault" they can't magic up the arbitrary 30℅ quota? Maybe women can make their own decisions and the party can't force them to become candidates? Maybe there's a slim chance that the reason we have fewer women in politics is that more men than women have an ambition to be involved in politics? Or maybe it's the unfortunate but undeniable biological truth that women can have babies and often do. Women have just as much right and opportunity to entre politics as men but fewer choose to do so which really irks a cohort of people as this does not suit their particular world view.

osarusan · 18-09-2015 10:10am

Pretty sure there were allegations that Fine Gael did this at the local elections, there was quite a storm within the party about it.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/tralee-mayor-resigns-from-fg-over-gender-quotas-1.1672731

Daith · 18-09-2015 10:13am

osarusan wrote: »

Pretty sure there were allegations that Fine Gael did this at the local elections, there was quite a storm within the party about it.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/tralee-mayor-resigns-from-fg-over-gender-quotas-1.1672731

"Mr Hussey yesterday said he had no problem with women joining councils, although it would be expensive for them in terms of babysitting and other arrangements. "

Do men not babysit at all down in Kerry I wonder?

NachoBusiness · 18-09-2015 10:42am

That's it. I'm gonna throw myself in front of a horse at the Curragh.

Chips Lovell · 18-09-2015 10:50am

suicide_circus wrote: »

Maybe, just maybe it's not the party's "fault" they can't magic up the arbitrary 30℅ quota....

So it's the women's fault?

It's funny how some parties don't have much trouble hitting the quota, while the "where are they going to find a babysitter" types in FF and FG are the ones struggling with it. Pure coincidence no doubt.

diomed · 18-09-2015 10:56am

Fianna Fail. Nobody cares.

The Randy Riverbeast · 18-09-2015 10:58am

Hopefully they only need one or 2 women to fill the quota.

Caliden · 18-09-2015 11:00am

Multinationals have hiring quotas for years ranging from gender to ethnicity. Got talking to a hiring manager before and he had to offer a job to a lesser qualified candidate to fill such a quota.

suicide_circus · 18-09-2015 11:34am

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

So it's the women's fault?

It's funny how some parties don't have much trouble hitting the quota, while the "where are they going to find a babysitter" types in FF and FG are the ones struggling with it. Pure coincidence no doubt.

That's the thing, its nobody's fault. There is no conspiracy. If people are serious about increasing the amount of women in any walk of life, paternity leave increases should be first on the agenda, not these sinister quotas

18-09-2015 12:37pm

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Hopefully they only need one or 2 women to fill the quota.

I think they have suggested 2 women might be necessary...to do the work of 1 man...;)

expectationlost · 18-09-2015 12:52pm

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I was speaking to a Fianna Fáil supporter recently. He told me that there is EU funding for the political parties, which is conditional upon the implementation of gender quotas in the nomination of candidates.

What he also offered was that where candidates had to be selected on the basis of gender rather than ability or popularity, it was likely that such candidates would be chosen to run in constituencies where FF wouldn't have much of a chance anyway.

FF is prepared to pay lip service to this gender quota idea in order to get funding.

its not EU funding it Irish state funding, if they don't get 30% of either gender the funding is cut by 50%

kneemos · 18-09-2015 12:57pm

expectationlost wrote: »

its not EU funding it Irish state funding, if they don't get 30% of either gender the funding is cut by 50%

They just going to run the extra female candidates in unwinnable constituencies anyway so I can't see any net gain in gender ratio.

Satan is Real · 18-09-2015 1:00pm

Lol so much for equality. Welcome to the 21st century where get penalized just for being a man.

KomradeBishop · 18-09-2015 1:04pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

All the egalitarians should be happy.

Dumb but happy.

Hmm? What's it got to do with egalitarianism? This is giving advantage to the women involved (to the point of giving them a monopoly on the current selection), and disadvantaging (to the point of excluding) the guys.

Daith · 18-09-2015 1:11pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Hmm? What's it got to do with egalitarianism? This is giving advantage to the women involved (to the point of giving them a monopoly on the current selection), and disadvantaging (to the point of excluding) the guys.

Not really? Deirdre Heaney went through the process and was selected over Sean Haughey.

FF added Sean Haughey to the ticket anyway because they expect him to be in a better chance to win a seat.

FF aren't going to block any candidate they think has a good chance of winning.

KomradeBishop · 18-09-2015 1:15pm

Daith wrote: »

Not really? Deirdre Heaney went through the process and was selected over Sean Haughey.

FF added Sean Haughey to the ticket anyway because they expect him to be in a better chance to win a seat.

FF aren't going to block any candidate they think has a good chance of winning.

It's stated right in the OP quote.

Daith · 18-09-2015 1:16pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's stated right in the OP quote.

So why not to the same in Dublin Bay North? They're picking what areas to run only women in.

They'll get their gender quota in calculated areas that they don't believe they'll win.

The guys aren't getting nominated because the party lacks faith in them

Ladies and gentlemen, the first ridiculous consequence of gender quotas

Comments