In what ways are men discriminated against?

Just a cross/double post from this thread on the Metrosexual forum.

I just did a quick tot-up (so I may be out by a wee bit) of the independent candidates that ran for election in 2011. According to this there were 174 male candidates listed as independent and 17 female candidates, similarly listed as independent.

Certainly there is a stark divide in gender where it comes to candidates running, there is absolutely no denying this. However, I do have to ask, what would gender quotas (that only apply to political parties) do to rectify this inequality where it comes to independent candidates? Nothing is the answer.

Indeed, the thing that I find odd about the entire gender quotas debate is that everyone seems to agree that they're not actually a solution to the problem of why so few women run, yet I've heard little or nothing suggested as to what might actually be a solution to the problem. I don't think there is any plan to deal with this, just this curious stop gap measure of quotas and nothing else.

Call me cynical, but I get the feeling that the whole quotas initiative is the brainchild of female party political hacks who are looking to get an unfair advantage in the selection process within their parties, and has absolutely nothing to do with gender equality in politics.

If it did, the proposed quotas system would not conveniently only benefit those women already in party politics and there might actually be some discussion on addressing why women are so poorly represented overall in the first place.

iptba wrote: »

People have lots of ideas about how the political system could be improved.

How is this quota system improving the system? I'm surprised that no one has pointed out that it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever to the vast majority of women who may wish to get involved in politics; the reasons for why they tend not to would remain and such quotas may even serve to turn some against voting for women's candidates ("she probably just quota'd her way to the top").

From what I can see the entire concept only really benefits party political hacks who happen to be women.

Look, I have a good friend who's wife ran, and lost, for the Dail last year through one of the main parties. She supports the whole quotas bit, and I can see why she can, because while she did have a good showing, there's no guarantee she'll get the ticket next time round. Quotas would guarantee it for her; she only has to watch out for other women going for the ticket.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I pretty much agree with you despite my other points. I think the best person for the job should be in the government regardless of gender/race etc however I do not think that it is case now or will it be with 40% quotas. Our whole election system is wrong and maybe it is a fundamental flaw with democracy.

There are various reasons why women are under-represented in politics and business, but high on, if not top of, the list is their continued role as carers in society.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, the solution to this is to realign this perception, so that both men and women may equally take up each others traditional roles, but this would of course require that women lose their present monopoly in this area, which is why you don't ever hear Feminist groups suggest anything other than nominal reform and instead concentrate on how women may be facilitated to choose both roles.

This is why in areas where discrimination against women is claimed (political and executive representation, pay-gap, etc), you rarely hear much debate on the reasons for this, let alone any actual attempt to address them. Positive discrimination has become the favoured means to deal with the issue, without actually dealing with it.

TC agreed re Independents. Meant to include that as part of my post. I think the larger parties will lose seats whereas independents will greatly benefit from the quota system ikn that a marginal Independent candidate (M or F) will get in ahead of the (perceived) weaker party candidate.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Never underestimate the stupidity of the electorate; I've been to election counts and having checked more than a few ballots in my time, I can confirm that the single most common voting pattern of preferences is alphabetical - 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on, all the way down. Scary.

A bigger fear would be quotas at a boardroom level which would put Ireland economically at a competitive disadvantage to our competitor countries.

I would imagine it would be a reason for multinationals not to set up major offices in Ireland. As long as our tax is low enough, it won't deter them on balance, but give them enough little reasons and over time and this may change.

Another likely effect is that companies will begin to appoint women board members who never attend meetings, in the same way that firms in countries that impose similar quotas for citizens (e.g. Saudi Arabia) 'employ' people who only turn up to pick up their pay cheque, just to satisfy the aforementioned quotas on paper. Nice 'work' if you can get it.