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

Ladies and gentlemen, the first ridiculous consequence of gender quotas

  • 18-09-2015 2:05am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    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.


«13456

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 43 IvanRakitic


    dsigrace


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,395 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    All the egalitarians should be happy.

    Dumb but happy.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,188 ✭✭✭DoYouEvenLift


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,907 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 20,395 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭starling


    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.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,229 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    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.

    Glazers Out!



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭OneOfThem


    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!


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 Evie Flabby Lip


    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 240 ✭✭Ignatius in bloom


    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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 240 ✭✭Ignatius in bloom


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,454 ✭✭✭Clearlier


    Fine Gael did this for the last election


  • Posts: 0 Evie Flabby Lip


    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 240 ✭✭Ignatius in bloom


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Massimo Cassagrande


    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..


  • Posts: 0 Evie Flabby Lip


    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.


  • Posts: 0 Evie Flabby Lip


    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...
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 240 ✭✭Ignatius in bloom


    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.


  • Posts: 0 Evie Flabby Lip


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,939 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 240 ✭✭Ignatius in bloom


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Dirty Dingus McGee


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,387 ✭✭✭Badly Drunk Boy


    Are there any gender-fluid candidates in the running?





    Edit: Or what Dirty Dingus McGee said...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,920 ✭✭✭Daith


    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.


Advertisement