Poll:Minimum quotas for female election candidates?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Typedef

Wicknight wrote:

The methophor about the teams was responding to the earlier posts that seemed to think quotas are an active discrimination against men, or some female plot to disenfrancise men, which in a typically male fashion, was completely missing the point.

You see. You are just spewing the same McMedia sanctioned drivel, that would seek to introduce forced unequality for the common good. You use a prejudice to back up your position as well.

(yes i am male btw)

So it's OK, for you to support legislative sexism then is it? Well, I'm blonde... so I guess it's OK for me to support declassifying blondes into second class citizens then.

The idea is that they don't fight amoung themselves, because I guess they feel the men win out unfairly. The idea would be that the women fight for the 40% (or whatever) and the men fight for the 60% and at the end you can't say that a woman didn't get her place in the party because a man unfairly took it, because the woman wasn't going up against men, only women

I'm sure that crackpot scheme makes sense in your head, but, the rest of us, won't be having elections for 'black' only representatives, 'woman' only representatives or any other segregated representatives, this side of a long a protracted civil war, where the discredited Imperialists of the early 1900s who supported things like the "white mans burdon" take control of Ireland.

Moriarty

No, no and thrice no. Infact, Down With This Sort of Thing.

ArthurDent

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well I think the Equality Authority should look into this. I mean, how can we claim to be a democracy when 51% of our population is under-represented by four-to-one?

And there was me voting for candidates that best reflected my views - rather than those that had the same type of genitals as me. Slapping myself on the head! How could I have been such a stupid woman. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Typedef wrote:

You see. You are just spewing the same McMedia sanctioned drivel, that would seek to introduce forced unequality for the common good. You use a prejudice to back up your position as well.

That was sarcasim ... hence the winking smiley face at the end
:rolleyes: <<<< You see, you see ... I put the rolling eyes smiley face there. God isn't modern technology cool, now even really dumb people can see when one is being sarcastic.

Typedef wrote:

So it's OK, for you to support legislative sexism then is it? Well, I'm blonde... so I guess it's OK for me to support declassifying blondes into second class citizens then.

All I said was that I was male ... quote me where I said I support legislative sexism.

Typedef wrote:

I'm sure that crackpot scheme makes sense in your head, but, the rest of us, won't be having elections for 'black' only representatives, 'woman' only representatives or any other segregated representatives, this side of a long a protracted civil war, where the discredited Imperialists of the early 1900s who supported things like the "white mans burdon" take control of Ireland.

You don't live up in the mountains in a shack reading about the "New World Order" with a shot gun under your pillow, by any chance?

Who exactly is trying to "take control of Ireland?" Imperialist time travellers from the 1900s?

Victor

I wouldn't go for quotas, but I'd really like to 'pressure' parties that have obvious skews in their profiles.

AngelofFire

I think that if political parties judged potential candidates purely on their political skills and abilities to get elected rather than their ability to radiate a macho image,they would be at least a 45% female representation.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I think only about 12% of Dail Eireann are women.

So what?

This is not - in and of itself - necessarily a problem.

I'd say you'd find similar gender inequality in a huge number of different working environments. Before tripping on about what we need to do to "fix" this, shouldn't we first ask the obvious question :why there is this gender-inequality.

For example, if I pointed out that the oil-drilling industry is male dominated, would that be enough to expect you to support a female-quota within the driller's ranks?

Or maybe our armed forces should be told to refuse male recruits up until such time as they too can maintain a more equal balance in their makeup?

Now, before anyone gets all hoighty-toighty and starts pointing out that there are reasons why there are gender inequalities in some job areas, consider that ultimately there are reasons why there are gender inequalities in many/most job areas.

Regarding our elected representatives, the first question I would ask is what the male/female ratio is in "active" party membership. If its approximately the same as the male/female ratio in the Dail, then clearly reason for the inequality (the problem, if it turns out to be one) lies elsewhere and trying to fix it in the wrong place is about the dumbest thing one could do.

If there is a significant difference, then one should check where this occurs. Is it when a party chooses its candidates? If so, is there a logic for it, or is it an internal bias within the party? Is it when the public votes for candidates?

Asking the first question and then proposing a solution always strikes me as a great way to get things wrong. I'm not saying that ultimately quota's would have to be a bad idea, but from what I've seen here, no-one is producing any sort of a good reason why they aren't...just some sketchy outlines of a perceived problem.

jc

ReefBreak

I think we can safely say that this Poll is a resounding "No".

If individual political parties want to introduce quotas for the amount of women (or men) that they want to put forward for an election, then that's fine, that's their business. But to legislate for a minimum amount of women (or men) on a ballot paper or in the Dáil is not very democratic, in my opinion.

Big Ears

ReefBreak wrote:

I think we can safely say that this Poll is a resounding "No".

If individual political parties want to introduce quotas for the amount of women (or men) that they want to put forward for an election, then that's fine, that's their business. But to legislate for a minimum amount of women (or men) on a ballot paper or in the Dáil is not very democratic, in my opinion.

agreed and I think that is the general consensus(Sp?) of most people here .

flogen

I havent gotten the chance to read through the whole thread, but this is my view anyway:

Its a terrible idea to put in a minimum amount of females that have to stand.
Firstly, its discrimination against men.
Secondly, if there isnt enough women who are willing to stand, or who are good enough to be voted in/put forward, how would forcing them make it any better?

If it was proven that political parties are actively avoiding female candidates from running for sexist reasons, then naturally I'd like something to be done about it, but legislation already exists on discrimination on the basis of gender, and there is no need to bring in any more.

I can imagine the canvasing:
"Hi I'm Mary Bloggs, vote for me, please"
"well, what are you basing your campaign on, what are your issues?"
"I dont have any, but the law says 50% of the candidates in each area have to be female, and my name was picked out of the hat. I'm really just a secretary at Fine Gael HQ."
"Well, at least your honest about your lack of policies... you can count on my vote."

flogen

The_Conductor

Not going altogether off-topic, there is at present a government policy that a minimum of 40% of all new recruits to State Boards be from each sex, and preference be given to anyone with a disability. Its also the policy recruitment into the public sector. If you're a woman with a disability- bingo! You're sorted..... In all seriousness- quotas of any nature, by definition, are undemocratic. If people of one gender, one sexual persuasion, one career path, one education level- are arbitrarily more liable to apply for a particular position than another random member of the population- then that is a valid sample of the population. If a sizeable portion of the population feel that they are not being represented, for one reason or another, then instead of bleating about affirmative action etc- surely they should put their best feet forwards and appeal to be elected for a particular post on their own merits.

This came particularly to my attention during a debate on Newstalk on the Saturday before the local elections where a candidate was asked why people should elect them to be their representative..... the person in question stated that she was appealing to a particular ethnic group to vote for her- as she was one of them and would be their voice. When pressed by the presenter to answer how she would support the general public- after all she was running in a local election in a particular locality and regardless of whether people voted for her or not, she would be expected to represent them should she be elected- she responded that she had no interest in having anything to do with the general public- that her own special interest group was her only concern- and if she were elected she would not be available to constituents who were not a member of her particular ethnic minority.

This is the type of person who would be helped by this so called affirmative action- a person who quite cheerfully would disenfranchise large chunks of the electorate.

Regardless of who is elected in elections- what is paramount is that anyone can run in the elections- that no-one is excluded from the process. The electoral process has to be perceived to be both fair and transparent. Finally- those who are elected, must represent the interests of all their constituents at a local interests, and the national interests of the country at a national level. Whether my local TD is a man or a woman is utterly and totally irrelevant. Whether my local TD is willing to make representations on my behalf if I ask them to- is very relevant however. We do live in a democracy......

The Corinthian

So, if we imposed such electoral quotas and not enough women got elected to reach said quotas, would we be left with a hung parliament?

Lactating Shark

Women may not make up 50% of candidates, but they do make up about 50% of the electorate. The real problem is that women dont vont for other women in sufficient quantities to achive a gender balance in the Dail. Particuarly women over 65 (more likely to vote then younger women) are much more likely to vote for a man. Quotas would not change this fact.

The_Conductor

Add to that- the Sunday Business Post was recently hypothesising that some of the female TDs were being elected by young males because of the "glamour factor" (as they put it). The examples given were Liz O'Donnel, Fiona O'Malley etc.

In all honesty- it is utterly and totally irrelevant whether our representatives are male or female- what is relevant is that they represent us, our interests and our concerns.

Once the elected representatives are so far removed from those who elected them as to consider them an annoyance, and indeeds elections themselves an irritation- well- thats hardly a democracy is it?

S.

simu

I'm not keen on quotas, makes female candidates look tokenistic.

Political parties should try to attract as many female as male members though - maybe they don't target women enough.

Also, I've seen studies that show that women get fewer promotions at work than men because they don't put themselves forward enough or because they underestimate their abilities - perhaps the same applies to political parties. If this is so, the parties really ought to look at how candidates are chosen and encourage the women to become more agressive about promotion.

The Corinthian

simu wrote:

Also, I've seen studies that show that women get fewer promotions at work than men because they don't put themselves forward enough or because they underestimate their abilities - perhaps the same applies to political parties.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3044514.stm

simu

The Corinthian wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3044514.stm

Well, I don't think it's necessary to do that although drugged politicians would make Oireachtas Report a bit more interesting.

All you'd have to do would be to give the women a bit of a pep talk, get a bit of competition going. Men aren't really all that hard to beat!

Sleepy

Massively opposed to this form of sexism.

A few points:

1. Any true feminist is for equality between the sexes, in all walks of life. Imposing quotas is discrimination as, given that some electoral areas count faster than others, it's quite possible that these areas will have elected a predominantly male representation, leading to the last counties where men could then automatically lose a seat by virtue of possessing a penis.

2. As The Corinthian pointed out: what happens if the numbers of women running for seats is less than half the seats in the Dail?

3. Changes are already on the way: most law students in this country are female. This is one profession where we draw a large section of our politicians from.

4. Discrimination is Discrimination is Discrimination. Whether you call it "Positive Discrimination" or "Affirmative Action" it still boils down to stripping one person of their rights in favour of another.

5. Were this system in place, Ivana Bacik would have more than likely won her seat in the last election and could you really stomach that careerist feminazi representing you?

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote:

1. Any true feminist is for equality between the sexes, in all walks of life.

Actually, that’s a misnomer. Feminism seeks to redress perceived imbalances between the genders by representing women’s rights. As such and by definition, feminism seeks to promote the interests of women rather than of equality, per say.

2. As The Corinthian pointed out: what happens if the numbers of women running for seats is less than half the seats in the Dail?

Read what I posted again and let us know when the penny drops.

Lioness

It's already bad enough that men are demonised for human society throughout history,

men demonised?!! Aww. Is that how ye feel when women try to assert their rights and create an equal status.

must be fought with legislation to counterbalance their atrocities and artificially elivate women

Nope. To counterbalance the inequality of women. Simple.

to actually legally ingrain the emasculation of men, in law as some sort of monstrous hate figures; instead brings the castigation of males as a sex to an almost Israeli neo-apartheid like level of sophistication.

grandiose waffle and nothing else.

Actually, that’s a misnomer. Feminism seeks to redress perceived imbalances between the genders by representing women’s rights. As such and by definition, feminism seeks to promote the interests of women rather than of equality, per say.

Nope. Actual imbalances. If you like I will post some examples.
Representing women's rights? Nope. It Endeavours to assert women's rights. There are men's groups to represent men's interests if thats what your worried about. Promote the interests of women? Yes, your nearly there... The interests of women such as equal pay, promotion opportunities etc.

In my opinion I think a quota for female election candidates should be introduced.
Well for example how was the issue of women being considered equally for promotions tackled? Or any other issue of inequality?? Thorugh the law...
A quota would inspire confidence in women to become election candidates.

The Corinthian

Lioness wrote:

Well for example how was the issue of women being considered equally for promotions tackled? Or any other issue of inequality?? Thorugh the law...

Well no, not really. Discrimination legislation is designed to counteract discrimination against a particular group, what you’re suggesting is promoting discrimination in itself, and is euphemistically referred to as positive discrimination.

A quota would inspire confidence in women to become election candidates.

Hell, if someone offered me a rottenbourough, I’d be inspired to run for office too. Kind of defeats that whole democracy thing though, doesn’t it?

I really did think people had grown out of this gender war crap in the eighties...

Lioness

what you’re suggesting is promoting discrimination in itself

Well I think its a shame that in this nation of (perceived) balance and equality etc, women TD's are a in minority... Something should be done to improve the numbers...
I think though it should be the parties who decide to implement the quotas, not the Dail...

I really did think people had grown out of this gender war crap in the eighties...

Well you haven't seemed to... see your loosely veiled begrudgery of the movement that campaigns for equal rights, (about 2posts ago).. :rolleyes: Just so you know, these campaigns would then help to abolish this "gender war cr@p".

The Corinthian

Lioness wrote:

Well I think its a shame that in this nation of (perceived) balance and equality etc, women TD's are a in minority... Something should be done to improve the numbers...

Here’s a novel idea - why don’t we address the inequality rather than creating a new one in an incompetent attempt to address the original one?

Try examining where this inequality stems from. Why political parties across the board seem to have more men rather than women even joining or getting involved, let alone putting themselves forward for candidature? Then perhaps try doing so by educating or convincing women to run rather than rewriting democracy.

Well you haven't seemed to... see your loosely veiled begrudgery of the movement that campaigns for equal rights, (about 2posts ago).. :rolleyes: Just so you know, these campaigns would then help to abolish this "gender war cr@p".

And I suppose that unions were set up to find a fair and happy medium between employers and employees? :rolleyes:

Feminism may from time to time adopt other causes, but ultimately it represents women. It does not campaign for equal rights of the father to child custody, for example, or cry foul when men are forced to pay higher car insurance rates than women, or start a march because only men are conscripted for military service.

I would not condemn a feminist for representing women, but I would condemn one for saying that they’re representing both. So please spare me the Feminism is about equality bullshìt. It’s not helping to abolish this "gender war cr@p", it has become very much part of this "gender war cr@p".

The_Conductor

Lioness wrote:

I think though it should be the parties who decide to implement the quotas, not the Dail...".

Well- would you then be in favour of a quota system applying in the different parties- whereby a certain percentage of their election candidates must be members of either sex- the accepted percentage being 40%- and allowing the entire panel be put to the electorate- and then accepting the will of the electorate?

Strictly speaking its still a democratic contest- but it would be up to all candidates to fight the election contest on their own merits, as opposed to delibertly appealing to women because they are the female candidate etc....

The point is being missed here though- we are in a democracy- there is nothing stopping anyone from running in elections at the moment- apart from inertia and apathy. Before you start going on about lack of childcare- there is actually creche facilities open for members of the Oireachtas- it is being provided for. Sure we have a lot more that we could do to try and make the playing field more equal- but a lot of them are choice issues. Men could choose to stay at home and mind their children- in this day and age most households have to be dual income to support a reasonable standard of living- so thats a non-runner unfortunately..... A quota system whereby X percentage of positions are reserved for anyone- is blatantly unfair- as whatever tag you call it- affirmative action or otherwise- it fosters discrimination. Hence in the states- single white males are now in the minority in tertiary education in 8 states, as the percentages reserved for ethnic groups and relaxed entry criteria make it extremely difficult for them to gain entry to college. (This has been fought in the courts, and they have been found to be discriminated against- and the offending states ordered to roll back their affirmative action programmes as a consequence).

Ultimately we are in a society where we the people decide who we want to represent us at the different levels in life. If unhappy about our representatives- it would be far more worthwhile to have an indepth debate as to the reasons there are perceived imbalances, than try to attack the perception head-on. There is no point in getting up on a soap box and announcing- "there is an illness- and the sympthoms of the illness are blah- we will tackle the sympthoms by...." instead of - "the causes of the illness are blah- and we will resolve the causes by x,y,z...."

Proposing affirmative action- is promoting discrimination against the entire population, by delibertly limiting their right to choose- and if their choice runs contrary to your chosen path of affirmative action- by disenfranchising them.

This is extremely well throdden turf, that we really do not need to revisit.

S.

Zulu

Victor wrote:

I wouldn't go for quotas, but I'd really like to 'pressure' parties that have obvious skews in their profiles.

This can be done by NOT voting for them.

Zulu

Lioness wrote:

men demonised?!! Aww. Is that how ye feel when women try to assert their rights and create an equal status.

Nope - I only feel like that when we hear how terrible all men are for being violent, sexist, and dumb.

Lioness wrote:

In my opinion I think a quota for female election candidates should be introduced..

Perhaps female candidates should focus on quality and not quantity; perhaps you should use your vote to vote for more women, thus addressing your issue.
If female voters voted female only, then political parties would change their tune very quickly. Luckily, a vast majority of female voters are intelligent enough to recognise that they can vote for who they feel best represents their interests.

Lioness wrote:

A quota would inspire confidence in women to become election candidates.

A quota could potentially fill seat in the Dail with very very poor candidates on the basis they are female, thus fuelling any sexist claims that may currently exist vie-a-vie women. Again, I would urge QUALITY, not QUANTITY.

Lioness

Why political parties across the board seem to have more men rather than women even joining or getting involved, let alone putting themselves forward for candidature?

This is A VERY INFORMATIVE ARTICLE. i think it answers your question v.well..http://www.qub.ac.uk/cawp/Irish%20htmls/0502article.htm
It also raises some interesting points...

ultimately it represents women

yes. it does. your point being.?.

It does not campaign for equal rights of the father to child custody...

No it doesnt. As I said before there are specific groups/organisations to deal with these issues. Do a google search.

I would condemn one for saying that they’re representing both.

So would I.

spare me the Feminism is about equality bullshìt

Let me state it more clearly for you, since your finding it difficult to comprehend... That group campaigns to raise womens' rights to the standard of mens. In doing so, equality is developed.

perhaps you should use your vote to vote for more women, thus addressing your issue.

I vote for who would serve me best. Its difficult to vote for "more women" as there arent many running for election. that is the whole point :rolleyes:

A quota could potentially fill seat in the Dail with very very poor candidates on the basis they are female

As someone else said there is a culture of inequality, apathy etc... A quota would inspire women to overcome these difficulties and run for election.Any candidate running for election would have their policies sorted out. They would have an agenda etc.. The media plays a part aswell... 1 candidate does not make a political party...
Im sure everyone here would like a change in the current male dominated government..who are doing a very poor job of running the country indeed.

The Corinthian

Lioness wrote:

This is A VERY INFORMATIVE ARTICLE. i think it answers your question v.well..http://www.qub.ac.uk/cawp/Irish%20htmls/0502article.htm
It also raises some interesting points...

She drones on about history and candidature statistics for two-thirds of the article, not raising anything new or particularly contentious at all. However, then she comes out with the following beauty:

“They ignore the fact that women join parties to get things done, not to talk about getting things done. They do not value women's different leadership styles. They do not respect the different experiences women bring to everyday issues.”

A big wide sweeping statement that sounds pretty says nothing by way of argument and is backed up by even less in the article. It just appears there as a fete accompli, to be believed at face value, derived from nothing. Dogma.

What’s worse is that the only reason one might want to point something like that out is in contrast to men in politics - so men just talk about getting things done, but do nothing... well I’m sure that’s not offensive - boys and girls, Lioness’s post was brought to you today by the word misandry.

Meanwhile it ignores even an attempt at seeking why so few women run for office. The author simply assumes it’s because of discrimination. Not even a vague attempt to ask what the causes are. What’s the membership breakdown of women in political parties, for example?

Still, another piece of excellent research from a credible source :rolleyes:

yes. it does. your point being.?.

That Feminism is not about equality, but (by your admission) about representing one gender’s interests over another, and has ultimately led to a perpetuation of that gender war crap you seem so fond of.

Ever hear of Nietzsche? I know he was another of us penis-welding oppressors, but his warning to “do not do battle with monsters, lest you become a monster” does spring to mind.

Let me state it more clearly for you, since your finding it difficult to comprehend... That group campaigns to raise womens' rights to the standard of mens. In doing so, equality is developed.

Horseshìt. When a group is partisan, equality is at best accidental. If suddenly there were more women elected than men elected under a quota system, would feminists everywhere, stand up and say “job done, we don’t need the quota any more”, even though it would act against the interests of the group they represent to do so? Guess again.

Do you honestly think people are so moronic to believe you after you’ve accepted that the basis of feminism is not to represent equality, but to represent one gender that we’ll get equality as a result? Ma va fa tasca.

As someone else said there is a culture of inequality, apathy etc... A quota would inspire women to overcome these difficulties and run for election.

What difficulties? I still haven’t heard of what these difficulties are here.

And incidentally, lack of confidence is not a valid ‘difficulty’, or should we include positive discrimination for shy men too?

Lioness

not raising anything new or particularly contentious at all

I suppose it doesnt raise anything new since goverment has always been male dominated. But I found those statistics v.disapointing in this day and age. I didnt think it was that bad but it is.

Meanwhile it ignores even an attempt at seeking why so few women run for office

The article was about selecting female candidates from the party...
"Over the last year, selection conventions ratified male candidates with only token nods in the direction of women political hopefuls...
In defence of their record, parties will argue that they can't find "suitable women" to run as candidates. They conveniently forget that "suitable" women (and men) learn the business of politics at local level. Women comprise 15pc of local councillors...

to be believed at face value, derived from nothing; What’s worse is that the only reason one might want to point something like that out is in contrast to men in politics

In contrast to men? Yes it was made precisely in contrast to men. Derived from nothing?!! :rolleyes: Look at the shambles of the male dominated government today! If you want I can post the various promises (and there are many) on which they have delivered "nothing". NOTHING.

about representing one gender’s interests over another

Nope. Representing and campaigning for one gender's basic human right for status and rights that should be equivilent to the other gender.

Ever hear of Nietzsche?.....

Ancient german philosophers' vagrant ramblings don't interest me.

When a group is partisan, equality is at best accidental.

Now thats a gem if I ever heard one. :rolleyes:

If suddenly there were more women elected than men elected under a quota system, would feminists everywhere, stand up and say “job done, we don’t need the quota any more”, even though it would act against the interests of the group they represent to do so? Guess again.

unsubstansiated and presumptious opinion. Roughly translated: waffle.

Do you honestly think people are so moronic to believe you

Believe me about what?

after you’ve accepted that the basis of feminism is not to represent equality, but to represent one gender that we’ll get equality as a result

You have finnaly cottoned on to what feminism is about. Well done. :rolleyes:
The addition of Italian phrases doesnt really add to your argument.

What difficulties?

I have already stated. As smccarrick stated, inertia, apathy... Someone else, earlier mentioned that Ireland fosters a culture of inequality and imblance. I would agree.

lack of confidence is not a valid ‘difficulty’

I never said it was.