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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

National Women's Council of Ireland calls for gender quotas in local elections

2»

Comments

  • #52
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,887 ✭✭✭iptba


    is_that_so wrote: »

    BTW Dun Laoghaire have hit 50/50 and the world hasn't ended.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/d%C3%BAn-laoghaire-rathdown-first-ever-council-with-50-50-gender-split-1.3906304
    I don’t see how that proves much given the election was only few days ago.


  • #53
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,887 ✭✭✭iptba


    is_that_so wrote: »
    A vote is your own choice. Someone else might view your choice as a dud.

    BTW Dun Laoghaire have hit 50/50 and the world hasn't ended.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/d%C3%BAn-laoghaire-rathdown-first-ever-council-with-50-50-gender-split-1.3906304
    Note the non-neutral language (“best”, “worst”). RTE used similar language in a piece a few days ago as I highlighted elsewhere.
    The party with the next best percentile was Fine Gael, where 57 of its 237 candidates were women.
    The worst-performing category were the Independents, with 34 female candidates elected, which was 17.7 per cent of the total in that category.


  • #54
    Calhoun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    If we want to have a serious conversation about voting in Ireland we should look at breaking the back of nepotism but doubt that will happen .


  • #55
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,887 ✭✭✭iptba


    Calhoun wrote: »
    If we want to have a serious conversation about voting in Ireland we should look at breaking the back of nepotism but doubt that will happen .
    Forcing gender quotas and targets could even increase the percentage of new candidates who are relatives of previously elected candidates if the pool of possible candidates who are female is smaller.


  • #56
    bren2001
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,010 ✭✭✭bren2001


    Calhoun wrote: »
    No one is saying the world will end because you have 50:50 in office. What we are discussing is getting elected based on sex rather than merit.

    Would you rather have sexists like Mary Mitchell O Connor or Regina Doherty who are only to happy to take advantage of the system to stay in power or back a decent female leader / role model.

    I don't think anyone is trying to argue that it isn't discrimination. However, the goal of it is to increase female representation in elected positions with the long term view of not requiring quotas in the future. It is slightly unfair on men right now but what other solutions do you propose to increase female participation rates and representation?


  • #57
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,887 ✭✭✭iptba


    bren2001 wrote: »
    However, the goal of it is to increase female representation in elected positions with the long term view of not requiring quotas in the future.
    Again I will point out there was no time limit put on the existing quotas. People have a tendency to claim such quotas are not envisaged in the long-term with little if any evidence that they will ever be dropped.


  • #58
    Calhoun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    iptba wrote: »
    Forcing gender quotas and targets could even increase the percentage of new candidates who are relatives of previously elected candidates if the pool of possible candidates who are female is smaller.

    That is exactly what is happening it's why it's the government is so gung hoe on it. Nice sneaky way to get brownie points and keep the status quo.


  • #59
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,535 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    bren2001 wrote: »
    I don't think anyone is trying to argue that it isn't discrimination. However, the goal of it is to increase female representation in elected positions with the long term view of not requiring quotas in the future. It is slightly unfair on men right now but what other solutions do you propose to increase female participation rates and representation?

    The electorate is 50/50 yet men retire later than women, work longer hours, pay more money in tax, have less tax spent on them, travel further to work, work in less comfortable locations, work tough manual jobs that impact health, die younger then women, commit suicide more than women, suffer parental alienation due to separation, are accused of all sorts of abuse in family courts, are more likely to be addicted to sunstances, more likely to be homeless....

    The best example, of how completely unbalanced todays society is, is in the issue of Domestic Abuse, despite evidence that in the case of non reciprocal domestic abuse cases, 70% of the abuse is women abusing men.

    https://www.quora.com/How-serious-is-domestic-violence-against-men-compared-to-domestic-violence-against-women

    Amen receives less than €1,000,000 a year in funding, women's aid receives over €17,000,000....do you think that is "slightly unfair", these are men who are being abused in their homes!! When you consider that women control approx 80% of the domestic spend, which gender do you think is being financially abused?

    Again, I ask you, How are women at a disadvantage by not having 50/50 representation?


  • #60
    Calhoun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    bren2001 wrote: »
    I don't think anyone is trying to argue that it isn't discrimination. However, the goal of it is to increase female representation in elected positions with the long term view of not requiring quotas in the future. It is slightly unfair on men right now but what other solutions do you propose to increase female participation rates and representation?

    Why should we be happy with discrimination? Are women so weak they need the leg up?

    What do we don't attract men to politics today (outside of the political dynasties)? I don't remember specific things trying to attract me to become a politician.

    Also how sure are you they will remove the gender quotas and what happens if it goes the other way. Would you like quotas for men ?

    Tokenism is just absurd to me, I rather people get in off their own back.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    daheff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,898 ✭✭✭daheff


    so are the national womens council also looking for gender quotas in nursing, primary school teachers, secretaries, childcare, dental assistants, building sites, oil rigs, building trades etc etc

    nope they are quite quiet on this.


    i have no gripes in the % of women in any job. i do take an issue where it has to be a mandated percentage. Mandating it means that there is most likely better qualified/suited person who wants the job who wont get it... because of their gender. Last time I looked, that was discrimination on the basis of gender.

    I think the national womens council would be better taking a look at the reasons why some jobs are unrepresented by women and why some are over represented.

    All that said, gender quotas for candidates for Dail elections (none present for local elections) has increased the number of female tds..... so fair play on that score.


  • #62
    NIMAN
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,984 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Why are they so unhappy with the current ratio of women in politics, yet see nothing wrong with the ratio of men in primary school teaching roles?


  • #63
    Calhoun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    NIMAN wrote: »
    Why are they so unhappy with the current ratio of women in politics, yet see nothing wrong with the ratio of men in primary school teaching roles?

    It's not about equality, it's about elevating a class of people into privileged positions and then pulling the ladder up behind them .


  • #64
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,887 ✭✭✭iptba


    daheff wrote: »
    so are the national womens council also looking for gender quotas in nursing, primary school teachers, secretaries, childcare, dental assistants, building sites, oil rigs, building trades etc etc

    nope they are quite quiet on this.


    i have no gripes in the % of women in any job. i do take an issue where it has to be a mandated percentage. Mandating it means that there is most likely better qualified/suited person who wants the job who wont get it... because of their gender. Last time I looked, that was discrimination on the basis of gender.

    I think the national womens council would be better taking a look at the reasons why some jobs are unrepresented by women and why some are over represented.

    All that said, gender quotas for candidates for Dail elections (none present for local elections) has increased the number of female tds..... so fair play on that score.
    I don't understand the last part. If one discriminates against candidates based on gender, so that female candidates have an advantage in getting a party nomination, it's not going to be much of a surprise that more female candidates get elected and it doesn't necessarily make it right.


  • #65
    bren2001
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,010 ✭✭✭bren2001


    I'm not trying to argue that men are not discriminated against. We can all list off a long list of things, the huge one for me is there was a nationwide discussion about womens role in society changing from being a wife and mother to having a role in the workplace. Men went from their role of being the breadwinner to not that anymore. The discussion solely focused around the changing role of women and not men. There are a lot of ways I would see prejudice against young boys or certain biases towards young girls. You don't hear women complain about equality in construction work etc.etc.

    Saying all that, just because men are being unfairly treated in one aspect of society doesn't mean we shouldn't try to incorporate women into other areas. Both sides should be striving for equality because neither have it. I would also like to stress that equality doesn't mean "treated the exact same". Men and women are different and policies should be made to reflect that.

    Why do I think there should be quotas for elected representatives? The function of a government is to represent its people and set out the rules and regulations to live in the agreed society. Our government functions under the idea of representative democracy where we elect officials to represent our views and be our voice in parliament. If a government is primarily made up of men, then the laws they set out will be biased towards their own internal tendancies. Thus, they will favor men. For example in male dominated government we have had the following laws:
    - Until 1976, men could sell their family home without consent from his wife.
    - Until 1981, a man could sue any man who had sex with his wife, even if she consented.
    - Until 1982, a womans income was counted as her husbands for tax purposes.
    - Until 1990, a husband could not rape his wife, it was automatically consensual.
    - Until 2018, women did not have autonomy over their own bodies for periods of time.
    - Right now, the constitution currently states a womens place is in the home.

    All of this are horrendously sexist.

    As we move forward as a society, I believe it is imperative that women are included in policy making discussion. I believe their inclusion will lead to more balanced policy making. It has been shown in a wide variety of literature that women tend to hold more left-wing views which would drastically alter our civil rights, social equality and provide a different balance to areas such as health care and family policy. (I would be left leaning myself but if it was the other way round, I'd accept it as well).

    I personally think quotas should have been written as a minimum of 40% of either gender and not specifically written as women. I do not inherently have an issue with their implementation once they are removed or reworded when and if the goal is achieved.
    I have not heard a better method for including the female voice in politics. This one isn't ideal but I believe its the best one we've come up with.


  • #66
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,535 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    bren2001 wrote: »
    I'm not trying to argue that men are not discriminated against. We can all list off a long list of things, the huge one for me is there was a nationwide discussion about womens role in society changing from being a wife and mother to having a role in the workplace. Men went from their role of being the breadwinner to not that anymore. The discussion solely focused around the changing role of women and not men. There are a lot of ways I would see prejudice against young boys or certain biases towards young girls. You don't hear women complain about equality in construction work etc.etc.

    Saying all that, just because men are being unfairly treated in one aspect of society doesn't mean we shouldn't try to incorporate women into other areas. Both sides should be striving for equality because neither have it. I would also like to stress that equality doesn't mean "treated the exact same". Men and women are different and policies should be made to reflect that.

    Why do I think there should be quotas for elected representatives? The function of a government is to represent its people and set out the rules and regulations to live in the agreed society. Our government functions under the idea of representative democracy where we elect officials to represent our views and be our voice in parliament. If a government is primarily made up of men, then the laws they set out will be biased towards their own internal tendancies. Thus, they will favor men. For example in male dominated government we have had the following laws:
    - Until 1976, men could sell their family home without consent from his wife.
    - Until 1981, a man could sue any man who had sex with his wife, even if she consented.
    - Until 1982, a womans income was counted as her husbands for tax purposes.
    - Until 1990, a husband could not rape his wife, it was automatically consensual.
    - Until 2018, women did not have autonomy over their own bodies for periods of time.
    - Right now, the constitution currently states a womens place is in the home.

    All of this are horrendously sexist.

    As we move forward as a society, I believe it is imperative that women are included in policy making discussion. I believe their inclusion will lead to more balanced policy making. It has been shown in a wide variety of literature that women tend to hold more left-wing views which would drastically alter our civil rights, social equality and provide a different balance to areas such as health care and family policy. (I would be left leaning myself but if it was the other way round, I'd accept it as well).

    I personally think quotas should have been written as a minimum of 40% of either gender and not specifically written as women. I do not inherently have an issue with their implementation once they are removed or reworded when and if the goal is achieved.
    I have not heard a better method for including the female voice in politics. This one isn't ideal but I believe its the best one we've come up with.

    The purpose of this was to ensure that in the case of war, women were not to be expected to work in the factories as the men were sent off to war...it is tied into our neutrality.

    What do you think is the purpose of The Womens Council which is an umbrella group for a number of women's issues advocacy groups, which is one reason why the tax payer is forced to spend €17,000,000 per annum on domiestic abuse services for women, and yet the mens domestic abuse services receive less than €1,000,000....I cannot think of anything more unbalanced....this is happening because of the influence the womens council has, it has access to government ministers and shapes legislation, ordinary men clearly do not have this type of influence.

    I do accept that women were treated horrifically by this backward state over the decades, I do recognise the important role the Womens Council has performed...this very day, there is not one single right I have that women do not have...so when will it be disbanded?

    Do we even know how many women are employed in these lucrative advocacy groups, do we know how much of our tax is handed over every year?

    When will we fund a Mens Council, to explore the issues unique to men?

    This current wave of rhetoric from the Womens Council is unchallenged by government and media, it seems, you have drank too much of it too.

    Quotas are undemocratic....they open a door that should never be opened, if you are not willing to accept religous or cultural quotas then gender quotas should be binned also.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,887 ✭✭✭iptba


    bren2001 wrote: »
    I'm not trying to argue that men are not discriminated against. We can all list off a long list of things, the huge one for me is there was a nationwide discussion about womens role in society changing from being a wife and mother to having a role in the workplace. Men went from their role of being the breadwinner to not that anymore. The discussion solely focused around the changing role of women and not men. There are a lot of ways I would see prejudice against young boys or certain biases towards young girls. You don't hear women complain about equality in construction work etc.etc.

    Saying all that, just because men are being unfairly treated in one aspect of society doesn't mean we shouldn't try to incorporate women into other areas. Both sides should be striving for equality because neither have it. I would also like to stress that equality doesn't mean "treated the exact same". Men and women are different and policies should be made to reflect that.

    Why do I think there should be quotas for elected representatives? The function of a government is to represent its people and set out the rules and regulations to live in the agreed society. Our government functions under the idea of representative democracy where we elect officials to represent our views and be our voice in parliament. If a government is primarily made up of men, then the laws they set out will be biased towards their own internal tendancies. Thus, they will favor men. For example in male dominated government we have had the following laws:
    - Until 1976, men could sell their family home without consent from his wife.
    - Until 1981, a man could sue any man who had sex with his wife, even if she consented.
    - Until 1982, a womans income was counted as her husbands for tax purposes.
    - Until 1990, a husband could not rape his wife, it was automatically consensual.
    - Until 2018, women did not have autonomy over their own bodies for periods of time.
    - Right now, the constitution currently states a womens place is in the home.

    All of this are horrendously sexist.
    In terms of being sued, it was a man who was being sued not a woman. So if anything, it seems it was men who were leaving out by that law.

    Just because this was the way things were, doesn't mean there was a big gender divide in some of those issues. For example, on abortion, a similar percentage of men and women are what might be called pro-life, and a few decades ago, people who were against abortion were in the majority.

    Also I have seen research to suggest that women have a stronger bias towards supporting other women than men have to supporting other men. The electorate was approximately 50% female and if a particular male politician was not supportive of women, they risk not getting elected. I haven't seen much evidence in recent decades of many male politicians who had a particular interest in supporting men while quite a number of politicians call themselves feminists.


  • #68
    daheff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,898 ✭✭✭daheff


    iptba wrote: »
    I don't understand the last part. If one discriminates against candidates based on gender, so that female candidates have an advantage in getting a party nomination, it's not going to be much of a surprise that more female candidates get elected and it doesn't necessarily make it right.

    more female candidates doesnt necessarily mean more females elected. it just means more face the vote. theoretically there only needs to be one female for each seat on the ballot paper. its whether the public vote is the key part to all of this.

    unfortunately a lot if voters vote for a party and not a person. So if you have a quota of female candidates then there will be some elected just because of their gender (to firstly get them on the ballot) and secondarily their party affiliation


  • #69
    daheff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,898 ✭✭✭daheff


    iptba wrote: »
    I don't understand the last part. If one discriminates against candidates based on gender, so that female candidates have an advantage in getting a party nomination, it's not going to be much of a surprise that more female candidates get elected and it doesn't necessarily make it right.

    i think its more correct to have a balanced gender split to reflect make up of society. while i think the gender quota is wrong, what its achieving is (theoretically) good. I would hope as a society we would have gotten to a more even split without the quota. Quota just pushes this forward a bit (but with possibly weaker candidates than if no quota).


  • #70
    Calhoun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    I think we will just have to all agree to disagree , for me I see two types of people those who see women as victims and those who see then as equals.

    I personally think those in favor of quotas are sexist but they probably think I'm the sexist.

    Ireland unfortunately is a country without an update law system and as such we are missing lots of legislation thst should be in place to protect all. It just sickens me that we only seen to care about one side.


  • #71
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,535 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    If you agree that we have the exact same rights, which we do.

    If you agree that the taxpayer funds womens issues to a far greater degree than mens issues, which we do.

    If you agree that despite the fact men die younger than women, we still spend way more money on womens health, which we do.

    If you agree that despite the fact men pay more money in tax in their lifetimes men receive way fewer services, which we do.

    If you agree that our education system is serving women better than men, which it is.

    If you agree that the family courts are more inclined to be favourable to women, which it is.

    If you agree that The Womens Council and all its umbrella groups have enormous influence in government, which it does.

    I can't provide figures to back any of those up, because, guess what...there is no taxpayer funded Mens Council producing the facts behind what we can all see as plain as day!

    Then, why are we getting our knickers in a twist because women aren't running for public office...maybe it is because most women don't actually feel unrepresented.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    bren2001
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,010 ✭✭✭bren2001


    Calhoun wrote: »
    I think we will just have to all agree to disagree , for me I see two types of people those who see women as victims and those who see then as equals.

    I personally think those in favor of quotas are sexist but they probably think I'm the sexist.

    Ireland unfortunately is a country without an update law system and as such we are missing lots of legislation thst should be in place to protect all. It just sickens me that we only seen to care about one side.

    Nah, I wouldn't say someone who disagrees with quotas is sexist. There's a perfectly reasonable and logical argument to support that view. However, women have faced far greater discrimination than man historically and it is one of the reasons they have all these supports in place now. We should develop them for men. We should have an equivalent Mens council. We should be carrying out studies as to why men die younger. We should not be berating women for having these systems in place.

    I agree, we only ever hear of one side of the argument. I'm sick of that myself but I'll take each proposal of the womens council on its merits. I'm not going to shoot it down because it helps women and not men.

    I view quotas as a means to an end. I understand why people would disagree with them. What I struggle to understand is that a lot of people don't agree that a government that has a better gender balance will develop better policy to better reflect both sexes. Quotas are the only method I've heard of that are effective at doing that. If we have to go through a small period of discrimination to achieve that goal, I'm game. However, I would prefer if they were written as 40% for both genders (in which case I wouldn't view it as a discriminatory law).


  • #73
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,407 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    bren2001 wrote: »
    However, women have faced far greater discrimination than man historically and it is one of the reasons they have all these supports in place now.

    Really? How so? Were women conscripted into armies to die on battlefields? Were women sent out to do dangerous work down holes in the ground? Were women obliged to support there family doing back breaking work as labourers? Were women denied a role in raising children due to societal expectations? You are confusing different roles in life as discrimination which it may not be. Even today the more traditional jobs available are dominated by men ie the tough and often dangerous outdoor jobs (construction, farming, mining etc)

    You are looking at the small minority of upper class men and extrapolating that to society as a whole. Life was **** for the majority of people for hundreds of years through the middle ages and industrial revolutions. It is only in the last 50 years or so that we have had comfort in our lives with a bit of free time. To see that through a prism of gender discrimination is to misunderstand history completely. In this part of the world it was a class/religion issue. In other parts it is colour of skin or caste that is important.


  • #74
    bren2001
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,010 ✭✭✭bren2001


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    Really? How so? Were women conscripted into armies to die on battlefields? Were women sent out to do dangerous work down holes in the ground? Were women obliged to support there family doing back breaking work as labourers? Were women denied a role in raising children due to societal expectations? You are confusing different roles in life as discrimination which it may not be. Even today the more traditional jobs available are dominated by men ie the tough and often dangerous outdoor jobs (construction, farming, mining etc)

    You are looking at the small minority of upper class men and extrapolating that to society as a whole. Life was **** for the majority of people for hundreds of years through the middle ages and industrial revolutions. It is only in the last 50 years or so that we have had comfort in our lives with a bit of free time. To see that through a prism of gender discrimination is to misunderstand history completely. In this part of the world it was a class/religion issue. In other parts it is colour of skin or caste that is important.

    I never said life was only **** for women. I never mentioned any classes. I'm actually referring primarily to working class women. Men had autonomy over their choices in life. Women did not. They were below men in family structures, educational structure (e.g. women not being allowed to do higher level mathematics), voting structures (women not getting a vote), in the workplace and in a wide range of areas in life.

    I never said men had it easy. I never said men were not discriminated against in certain areas. I've been pretty darn clear that I agree that they have been. Yet, you choose to ignore that and continue to ram down the same point as everyone else.


  • #75
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,455 ✭✭✭tritium


    iptba wrote: »
    Note the non-neutral language (“best”, “worst”). RTE used similar language in a piece a few days ago as I highlighted elsewhere.

    The view of that paper is very interesting. This is from today’s op ed piece
    European election results present a more positive picture, with six of the country’s 13 MEPs elected to the Parliament being women. But given that the outcome last time around was six women out of 11, gender balance had already been achieved. There was better news in the North, where all three seats were won by women.

    Not really sure why it’s better news from a gender equality perspective that one gender is completely excluded.....


  • #76
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,407 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    But men did not have autonomy. Often we would be sent off to die due to an argument between royal cousins.
    Most couldn't vote either as this was the right of the landed wealthy class.
    To say a wife was beneath a man within a family tells me you do not understand Irish family dynamics. The woman was mainly in charge of the home and made the majority of the choices in that regard. The man was the provider of the means for her to make those choices. This still resonates true today where women make something like 80% of the spending decisions in a house hold.

    Education wise traditionally in Ireland you would do a minor bit of schooling and then goto work as young as possible. Where is the autonomy?

    What other range of areas was there? Both men and women's lives were pretty set from birth and there was little choice for anyone other than the wealthy. Even the wealthy were severely limited in their choices as they would have been mostly following the expected roles based on what their parents did.


  • #77
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,407 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    Some stats re suffrage

    1867 32% of men had the right to vote.
    1918 all men over the age of 21 get vote
    1928 all women over the age of 21 get to vote


  • #78
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,523 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    Some stats re suffrage

    1867 32% of men had the right to vote.
    1918 all men over the age of 21 get vote
    1928 all women over the age of 21 get to vote

    Surely that is something we should have been celebrating last year. 100 years of free voting for men. But no , nothing.

    It was only 10 years between the 2

    2028 will be all about women's liberation and right to vote.


  • #79
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,407 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    Women over 30 got it in 1918 aswell.


  • #80
    Rodin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    Gender quotas are sexism by another name.

    Women should be encourage to do whatever job/role in society that they want to, but there should not be legally enforceable minimum numbers in my view.

    Will we do the same with nurses, primary school teachers, midwives, cabin crew; all traditionally female roles?

    Will we also do the same brickies, plumbers, sparkies, bus and train drivers?

    Encourage and support, yes. But never force the numbers.


  • #81
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,407 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    the_pen_turner wrote: »
    It was only 10 years between the 2.

    1918 is significant as the end of world war I. The right to vote was essentially a thank you for young working class men going abroad to be butchered in the trenches of Europe. Something that women did not have to do.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,535 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    1918 is significant as the end of world war I. The right to vote was essentially a thank you for young working class men going abroad to be butchered in the trenches of Europe. Something that women did not have to do.

    I believe the thinking was at the time, that if the government was going to take young men out of their homes, work and lives and send them to fight and die in trenches it would be only right to afford them a say in who that government is...remember, WW1 was a particularly brutal experience for ordinary men!

    According to Hillary Clinton, war is worse on women because they lose their brothers, fathers, husbands to war...she has a point...being dead in a trench in Northern France means you never have to worry about paying the bills again! Of course, living with a man who bears the scars of war can't be easy either...


  • #83
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,407 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    My Granny's uncle was gassed in the trenches in Belgium. He was a shadow of a man for the rest of his life by her accounts as his lungs were effectively torn to shreds. Other uncles never came back.


  • #84
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,535 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    My Granny's uncle was gassed in the trenches in Belgium. He was a shadow of a man for the rest of his life by her accounts as his lungs were effectively torn to shreds. Other uncles never came back.

    The poor man, it must be so hard to came back from that kind of hell.

    I just hope the feminists of the day didn't shame him into going to war, which was common at the time... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather

    No fear of equality back then!


  • #85
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,268 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    One has to question whether a National Women's Council is required in a country where women have more legal rights and protections than men do.

    Or, if it's to be kept, perhaps it should be funded by taxation only on those for whom it lobbys


  • #86
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 22,407 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    Doubt it tbh. Other family were in the IRA so I am assuming a complicated situation that she never went into. That time in West Cork families were too busy scratching a living from the rocky soil to be worried about the popular opinions of London were.


  • #87
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,535 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    Sleepy wrote: »
    One has to question whether a National Women's Council is required in a country where women have more legal rights and protections than men do.

    Or, if it's to be kept, perhaps it should be funded by taxation only on those for whom it lobbys

    I would take a very very brave politician to ask that question...a lot of people are employed full time in this world (who do you think hosts all those lunches and dinners on International Womens Day) who have no intention of packing up their tent, they will keep pushing the "equality" agenda and they get to determine/define what the parameters of "equality" is!

    We need a Mens Council, no body who is invested in gender equality could possible object to that....surely....you'd imagine...


  • #88
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,887 ✭✭✭iptba


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    I believe the thinking was at the time, that if the government was going to take young men out of their homes, work and lives and send them to fight and die in trenches it would be only right to afford them a say in who that government is...remember, WW1 was a particularly brutal experience for ordinary men!

    According to Hillary Clinton, war is worse on women because they lose their brothers, fathers, husbands to war...she has a point...being dead in a trench in Northern France means you never have to worry about paying the bills again! Of course, living with a man who bears the scars of war can't be easy either...
    Not at all convinced she has a point that war is worse on women and doubt any major politicians would get away with saying the reverse if women were the ones who generally fought in wars and were conscripted.

    If a man dies or is injured, siblings male and female are similarly affected.

    Similarly if a father dies, his children male and female are similarly affected.

    Having your spouse die is very sad/tragic but not equivalent to dying and some will get into new relationships.

    Having physical and/or mental injuries is worse than your spouse having them. Also sometimes the relationship might end (particularly if the man’s ability to be economically productive is affected) and the healthy person has a better chance of starting a new relationship. And the healthy person won’t then be really affected by the war-inflicted injuries.

    Also lots of people who die in wars are not married.


  • #89
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    My Granny's uncle was gassed in the trenches in Belgium. He was a shadow of a man for the rest of his life by her accounts as his lungs were effectively torn to shreds. Other uncles never came back.

    according to the new leaders of society, white men don't deserve to be commemorated . .
    A Student Union President . . vowed to remove a mural commemorating students who died in World War One because it contains only white men.

    Emily Dawes [a white woman btw], who leads the University of Southampton Student Union was widely condemned after tweeting: "Mark my words - we're taking down the mural of white men in the uni Senate room, even if I have to paint over it myself."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/25/student-union-president-causes-outrage-vowing-take-war-memorial/


  • #90
    newport2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,607 ✭✭✭newport2


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    The electorate is 50/50 yet men retire later than women, work longer hours, pay more money in tax, have less tax spent on them, travel further to work, work in less comfortable locations, work tough manual jobs that impact health, die younger then women, commit suicide more than women, suffer parental alienation due to separation, are accused of all sorts of abuse in family courts, are more likely to be addicted to sunstances, more likely to be homeless....

    The best example, of how completely unbalanced todays society is, is in the issue of Domestic Abuse, despite evidence that in the case of non reciprocal domestic abuse cases, 70% of the abuse is women abusing men.

    https://www.quora.com/How-serious-is-domestic-violence-against-men-compared-to-domestic-violence-against-women

    Amen receives less than €1,000,000 a year in funding, women's aid receives over €17,000,000....do you think that is "slightly unfair", these are men who are being abused in their homes!! When you consider that women control approx 80% of the domestic spend, which gender do you think is being financially abused?

    Again, I ask you, How are women at a disadvantage by not having 50/50 representation?

    Men's problems are men's issues and up to men to sort out. Men must change to rectify.

    Women's problems are society's issue and up to society to sort out. Society must change to rectify.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,535 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    A good article in Quillette about why women don't vote for for feminist parties, it is important to stress, that there are way more women who don't identify as feminists as women who do, unfortunately, media, celebrity culture, twitter (in particular) and the women's rights advocacy industry are full of feminists who are loud and influential.

    https://quillette.com/2019/05/31/why-dont-women-vote-for-feminist-parties/

    I do feel sorry for ordinary well intentioned feminists who have been sucked into believing the misleading rhetoric that this wave of feminism, which in my opinion is radical feminism, is based on equality...it clearly is not, it is rooted in hard left ideology.


  • #92
    Calhoun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    Nobelium wrote: »
    according to the new leaders of society, white men don't deserve to be commemorated . .

    She had to step down after all this happened. The funny thing is the right is on the rise in Europe, look at all the national parties that got in.

    If we don't change the trajectory of attacking one half of society and re-writing history the outcome is not good.

    This was linked in another thread, and the argument about the outsiders looking in at the new elite is quite scary to think about.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8BRdwgPChQ&list=WL&index=3&t=0s


  • #93
    Reviews and Books Galore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Reviews and Books Galore


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    A good article in Quillette about why women don't vote for for feminist parties, it is important to stress, that there are way more women who don't identify as feminists as women who do, unfortunately, media, celebrity culture, twitter (in particular) and the women's rights advocacy industry are full of feminists who are loud and influential.

    https://quillette.com/2019/05/31/why-dont-women-vote-for-feminist-parties/

    I do feel sorry for ordinary well intentioned feminists who have been sucked into believing the misleading rhetoric that this wave of feminism, which in my opinion is radical feminism, is based on equality...it clearly is not, it is rooted in hard left ideology.

    IMO, feminism is wrong from the onset. I don't see is xism as Hierarchal, and I do no believe that any society had a patriarch chy (men on top)

    Women and men both had their priveleges and disadvantages, and it has never been the evil men keeping down the women.


  • #94
    Kimsang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭Kimsang


    bren2001 wrote: »
    If there was equal opportunities for men and women, over a long enough sample period, it is fair to assume that their would be an equal number of male and females elected. Certain cycles may have more men than women and vice versa. It is clear, that more men are being elected and I would argue that is due to certain biases in the process for determining candidates and the electoral process. The troupe "equality of outcomes" is utter rubbish from a mathematical perspective.

    I have no issues with gender quotas. There is a plethora of research to support the claim they increase participation levels of women and after a period of time they are no longer needed both in elected positions and in industry. I personally take the view that Ireland is roughly 50% men and 50% women and the Dail and local councils should reflect this. I think there is merit and logic in constituencies and wards to have male and female positions to represent its constituents fairly.

    I see why men don't like it. It personally will affect me negatively but if it moves us to a more progressive society then I have no issue with their introduction.

    This is not a fair assumption to make. In more egalitarian countries, you see more sexual di-morphism, not less. To make such an assumption requires evidence, and unfortunately these 'scientific journals' have become corrupted by humanities subjects or 'grievance studies'.
    For you to make these claims, please prove them or site a study in particular that we can actually look at the individual merits of that exact study.

    Mike Nanya does a great youtube channel highlighting the work of exposers, and just how easy it is to get published:

    "Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon"
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0966369X.2018.1475346
    Who Are They to Judge? Overcoming Anthropometry and a Framework for Fat Bodybuilding
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21604851.2018.1453622
    Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria and Transphobia through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use
    https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs12119-018-9536-0
    An Ethnography of Breastaurant Masculinity: Themes of Objectification, Sexual Conquest, Male Control, and Masculine Toughness in a Sexually Objectifying Restaurant
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11199-018-0962-0

    They learned that, in their own words:

    "You can conclude nearly anything as long as it's hostile to the right things... privilege in particular"

    They literally re-wrote a section of Mein Kampf as intersectional feminism and it got accepted.

    Mike Nanya's youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVk9a5Jcd1k&list=PLLHyNSlsz449SOhzpo7ClMEKe9WkXt5GO&index=6


  • #95
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,887 ✭✭✭iptba


    We are constantly being told that there are no differences between men and women. But then, when it suits, supposedly there, but only in a way that women are better than men.
    Lorraine Courtney: 'We need more female leaders like Ardern to make the world a kinder, better place'
    https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/lorraine-courtney-we-need-more-female-leaders-like-ardern-to-make-the-world-a-kinder-better-place-38202097.html
    At 38, Ardern is the world's youngest female head of state. No doubt her age and gender have informed her progressive ideals and style of leadership. And looking at the recent macho posturing from the likes of Macron and Trump at the D Day commemorations last week, one thing's clear. The world desperately needs more young women in positions of power.

    Having more women in charge is the only way to truly change patriarchal culture, from the inside out.

    Here, we're still struggling to gender balance our politics, both female leader-wise and by how much male politicians outnumber women. Thirty-five women were elected as members of the 32nd Dáil, an all-time high. But women still account for just 22pc of TDs and 30pc of senators.
    [..]
    Political science research has found over and over again that women legislators are more likely to introduce legislation that specifically benefits women. But according to research by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) on women in politics, there's established and growing evidence women's leadership in political decision-making improves it for everyone.

    But the IPU research found women in politics remain concentrated in committees that deal with social issues, education, health and family affairs. While these committees are important, women are often absent from debates on finance and foreign affairs. This means we have a lesser say in financial priorities and shaping national agendas.

    Sadly, because women have never had a truly representative Dáil, we don't actually know what our country would look like if it was run by women. Although it's hard to imagine it could be worse than it is right now. If we'd had equal numbers of women and men in public office since day dot, perhaps childcare would be affordable and men wouldn't be paid more than women for doing the same job.

    If there were more women decision makers, would we still have no hope of ever solving our homelessness crisis? If the Dáil actually reflected our country in terms of gender, maybe we could better tackle problems in our health service and real equality between men and women would feel less like a vanishing point on an ever-moving horizon.

    Having women in Government is more than just optics.

    We bring new ideas to the table. We create new ways of thinking and of working. We need to make that change now. A new model that tries something out of the box and allows politicians - women or men - to pursue person-centred approaches to policy issues is worth considering.

    A role model like Jacinda Ardern is something that Irish - and global - politics badly needs.
    ---
    But according to research by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) on women in politics, there's established and growing evidence women's leadership in political decision-making improves it for everyone.

    I imagine people would be very hesitant to publish the opposite and it would be hard to get it published in peer-reviewed journals.


  • #96
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    Plenty women have been at the top of Irish politics from O'Rouke to Harney to Coughlan to Robinson to McAleese. They didn't do any better than the men.
    Thatcher and May done no better than the male PM's in the UK. Jacinda Ardern is just the female version of Justin Trudeau and no better, not that he sets the bar very high. Hillary was no better than Bill.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Calhoun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    It seems to be popular to just basically say men are **** and nearly shouldnt be in politics that women can do it better and like already pointed out that women in politics are no better.

    Look at the two leading ladies up the North as an example closer to home. Sure we can all cherrypick politicians of either sex how are good but it doesnt mean it should be the only reason we vote for a politician.

    My big question is what happens when men no longer feel they have a place in the official world. We better be a fairly strict police state by then because i can tell you something the natural reaction through history of being disenfranchised and not having a voice is violence.

    We can already see structures like this in the booming drugs industry in Ireland. You can easily make a name for yourself and more money than you can by being legit.


  • #98
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,535 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    If anyone who doubts the influence of The Womens Council and its power to influence need only look at the latest initiative

    https://www.thejournal.ie/citizens-assembley-on-gender-4679018-Jun2019/

    The entire premise of this is identifying what can be done afford more equality for women, not one single mention of Education, Health and Justice where men are systematically denied the same opportunities as women.

    This Government, supposedly a centre right party, are spending more and more of taxpayers money encroaching on private enterprise and family dynamics in the pursuit of a completely one sided gender equality program.


  • #99
    Calhoun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    If anyone who doubts the influence of The Womens Council and its power to influence need only look at the latest initiative

    https://www.thejournal.ie/citizens-assembley-on-gender-4679018-Jun2019/

    The entire premise of this is identifying what can be done afford more equality for women, not one single mention of Education, Health and Justice where men are systematically denied the same opportunities as women.

    This Government, supposedly a centre right party, are spending more and more of taxpayers money encroaching on private enterprise and family dynamics in the pursuit of a completely one sided gender equality program.

    It could be a good thing if done fairly, theoretically if they apply fair logic to selections it should work.


  • #100
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,887 ✭✭✭iptba


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    If anyone who doubts the influence of The Womens Council and its power to influence need only look at the latest initiative

    https://www.thejournal.ie/citizens-assembley-on-gender-4679018-Jun2019/

    The entire premise of this is identifying what can be done afford more equality for women, not one single mention of Education, Health and Justice where men are systematically denied the same opportunities as women.

    This Government, supposedly a centre right party, are spending more and more of taxpayers money encroaching on private enterprise and family dynamics in the pursuit of a completely one sided gender equality program.
    I started a new tread specifically on this:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=110420959#post110420959


Advertisement