Poll:Minimum quotas for female election candidates?

The_Conductor

Lioness wrote:

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....

Yes, and if you check, women at present comprise a little over 13% of the number of TDs (source: http://www.ndpgenderequality.ie ) (Women at present hold 21 out of 165 positions in the lower house, and 10 out of 60 positions (a little less than 17%) of the positions in the Seanad)

All in all female representation in both houses of the Oireachtas is in actual fact a close representation of the proportion of women who are representatives at local level.

Thus- in the higher house where there is a little perogative on the part of the government in the nomination of certain positions- there does in actual fact appear to be positive discrimination in action at present- albeit from an extremely low threshold.

As I mentioned earlier- apathy and inertia, are the two main killers of dynamism and conviction. If only 15% of local representatives are women- surely it makes sense to assess why more women are not willing to run for local elections- and hence onto national levels.

There does appear to be a particular mindset necessary to be a politician (not limited to this day and age)- including many attributes that most of us would not consider the nicest- teflon characteristics, rhinocerous type skin, the ability to spin beyond recognition etc. These are traits that perhaps women, may consider beneath their ethics (and the reason most of the population distrust politicians and almost take glee to see them squirm in the limelight).

It does take a particular mindset to become a politician- I am not being sexist when I suggest that perhaps there are a larger body of men with the types of morals and scrupples associated with politics, than there are women. Its actually a compliment really. It can be so disheartening for someone who really wants to make a difference- who really honestly and truely believes in a cause- and is then trampled on from above and everywhere for petty reasons of cronyism etc

The level of female politicians at national level, does in actual fact mirror those at local level...... There needs to be a more indepth evaluation of the reasons that 1) More women and 2) more people in general are not willing to become involved in politics- initially at a local level building and improving their communities from the bottom up.

Someone needs to take a serious look at the impediments to increased interest in politics (from other than hacks) in this country......

Zulu

Lioness wrote:

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:

Well the rolly eyes are great, but, seen as your voting for who serves you best - whats your problem? You don't like men to serve you? And you can over come your difficulty of voting for more women by becoming actively involved in a political party, muster up some popularity, and start running for various elections. :eek: ...or is that just WAY to crazy a solution. Perhaps theres isn't as many female candidates because not as many females bother/are interested! :rolleyes:

FYI: In society - due to certain obvious differences in the sexes - some jobs tend to appeal to men more than women or vice versa.

Lioness wrote:

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.

They aren't doing a poor job because they are men. They are doing a poor job because they are people. Mary Harney happens to be a woman, or are you tactfully neglecting that? A quota wouldn't inspire anyone, it would merely be to the detriment of society as a whole. For a start, I would appear that being female is a handicap; unable to compete with men, and require help. Never mind the fact that some better male candidates could lose out merely because they were unfortunate enough to be born with a penis.
...but I suppose that makes them poor in the first place - what with all the sitting around talking about what has to be done and doing nothing.
:rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Lioness wrote:

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.

How is that new in this discussion? We’ve been discussing those types of stats for the last few pages.

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...

That is not an attempt at seeking why so few women run for office. That’s grabbing a few sound bites and then jumping to a conclusion. So only 15% of councillors are women, why? Does she bother to examine why? Does she ask what the breakdown of political party memberships is like? Nope.

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.

Right, the World’s a bad place because of us men :rolleyes:

You come out with an offensive statement like that then you expect me or anyone else, male or female, to accept you really have equality in mind? It seems fairly evident from such an obscenely sexist statement that gender conflict and misandry are two principles close to your heart.

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

More horse****. Why don’t you argue how unions when campaigning for workers rights are looking for a fair and equitable deal for management too? :rolleyes:

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

I’d imagine that any philosophy that would disagree with your Worldview wouldn’t interest you either.

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

If it is, rebut it or quit the meaningless clichés.

unsubstansiated and presumptious opinion. Roughly translated: waffle.

A.K.A. You can’t argue against it, so you’ll just try to pass it off as unimportant. At least when I pointed out you were talking horseshìt, I told you why.

Believe me about what?

The crap you misquote me on point below.

You have finnaly cottoned on to what feminism is about. Well done. :rolleyes:

I said “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?” and you’re now presenting it as the opposite.

I hadn’t realized you were that intellectually dishonest.

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.

The literary Fem-Nazi of that article stated quite a few things, unfortunately she didn’t back any of them up or even explain them. Cultures of inequality and imbalance don’t just appear, but have causes and both you and your role model have not bother to examine them, simply stated them as fact.

Hint: Try using a little logic in your argument.

I never said it was.

Oh and inertia and apathy is derived from what exactly? And it hardly affects only one gender either. So, care to contradict yourself further?

Lioness

Zulu wrote:

but, seen as your voting for who serves you best - whats your problem?

Eh? Maybe you should read and keep reading the initial post at the start of the thread until the topic of discussion becomes clear...

Perhaps theres isn't as many female candidates because not as many females bother/are interested!

I don't buy that opinion.

In society - due to certain obvious differences in the sexes - some jobs tend to appeal to men more than women or vice versa.

I agree with you that we have a certain 'society'. Why don't you expand on that.

Mary Harney happens to be a woman, or are you tactfully neglecting that?

Nope. I said the government was male dominated. Women are in a minority.

A quota wouldn't inspire anyone, it would merely be to the detriment of society as a whole. For a start, I would appear that being female is a handicap; unable to compete with men, and require help

Oh right. So all equality legislation depicts women as uncapable and needing "help". :rolleyes:

Never mind the fact that some better male candidates could lose out merely because they were unfortunate enough to be born...

Explain how they could "lose out" exactly?

The Corinthian wrote:

How is that new in this discussion

I never said it was.

That is not an attempt at seeking why so few women run for office

Nope. It isn't. It was a valid statistic put forward to challenge the parties' excuse that they 'can't find suitable candidates'.

Does she bother to examine why?

the article is about why there are so few women in politics in general. The author puts forward a number of (valid in my opinion) reasons, as to why this is.

You come out with an offensive statement like that; an obscenely sexist statement

what exactly offended you from the fact I posted about the male dominated government having reneged on its promises?? Why don't I rub salt in your wounds and post the unfulfilled promises...

I’d imagine that any philosophy that would disagree with your Worldview wouldn’t interest you either?

Nope. Your imaginings are incorrect.

You can’t argue against it

Nope. Because you don't have a bulls notion about feminism and what it stands for. Your half c0cked notions and begrudgery of it have been displayed pretty well on this thread. It's almost laughable.
The following link should maybe help you understand what its about. Maybe you should educate yourself about things before you go making false statements.
http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/genwom/whatisfem.htm

At least when I pointed out you were talking horseshìt, I told you why.

Oh you mean your presumptious opinion on an organisation which you have failed to show an understanding of?
let me point out to you the statement after your current expletive in your last post leaves a lot to be desired. In fact you failed to argue against the definition of feminisim and what it stands for. Says it all really. :rolleyes:

will get equality as a result?”

Yes! With the feminist movement campaigning for womens' rights, equality would/will become a reality. Both genders are equal.

Cultures of inequality and imbalance don’t just appear, but have causes

Yup. Society. I think smccarrick's post describes the situation well.

The Corinthian

smccarrick wrote:

It does take a particular mindset to become a politician- I am not being sexist when I suggest that perhaps there are a larger body of men with the types of morals and scrupples associated with politics, than there are women.

Actually it is sexist, and you don’t actually base this on anything more than a superficial observation. It is one thing to suggest that men are biologically (and culturally) more aggressive, but to suggest that we lack the same level of “morals and scruples” is another thing altogether - that is pure sexism.

Its actually a compliment really.

No more than if I were to suggest that women are better disposed to homemaking than men. Oddly enough, I’d probably be vilified for such an observation though.

Someone needs to take a serious look at the impediments to increased interest in politics (from other than hacks) in this country......

I would agree with such an examination, but only if we honestly examine the root causes and these impediments are identified through deduction rather than induction.

The Corinthian

Lioness wrote:

I never said it was.

You did, when you claimed that it “raises some interesting points”, when in reality any points it raises are at best old and clichéd.

Nope. It isn't. It was a valid statistic put forward to challenge the parties' excuse that they 'can't find suitable candidates'.

How does showing that statistically there are fewer women in politics refute that as a result they 'can't find suitable candidates'?

the article is about why there are so few women in politics in general. The author puts forward a number of (valid in my opinion) reasons, as to why this is.

And again I’ll have to ask you what root reasons and does she back any of them up?

what exactly offended you from the fact I posted about the male dominated government having reneged on its promises?? Why don't I rub salt in your wounds and post the unfulfilled promises...

What is offensive is that this is apparently a male trait in your eyes as opposed to a human one. That men are genetically predisposed to this type of behaviour and women are not. Such a sweeping presumption is classic sexism and deeply offensive.

Nope. Your imaginings are incorrect.

Then why do you give evidence to the contrary. You continually spout dogma, as if by simply saying it makes it true, and have not actually argued any of your points.

Nope. Because you don't have a bulls notion about feminism and what it stands for. Your half c0cked notions and begrudgery of it have been displayed pretty well on this thread. It's almost laughable.

Nice. Still not able to argue, but it’s nice to see you’ve turned to personal attacks instead.

Oh you mean your presumptious opinion on an organisation which you have failed to show an understanding of?

What ‘presumptuous opinion’? How have I ‘failed to show an understanding’? Contrary to your opinion just saying something does not make it true, which unfortunately seems to be the basis of many of your arguments.

let me point out to you the statement after your current expletive in your last post leaves a lot to be desired. In fact you failed to argue against the definition of feminisim and what it stands for. Says it all really. :rolleyes:

Point away - which statement?

Yes! With the feminist movement campaigning for womens' rights, equality would/will become a reality. Both genders are equal.

Why don’t you address the point that I have made repeatedly with regard to partisan organisations such as, for example, unions? To claim that any organisation whose reason d’etre is to represent one group over an other will ultimately seek equality is a nonsense that even a child can understand.

Zulu

Lioness wrote:

I don't buy that opinion.

Good for you - great argument - that really put me in my place. :rolleyes:

Lioness wrote:

I agree with you that we have a certain 'society'. Why don't you expand on that.

What exactly do you want me to expand on? ...or will I just write a book on society and all it's aspects?

Lioness wrote:

Nope. I said the government was male dominated. Women are in a minority.

Mary Harney is a party leader in a collation, she has power. What is she doing with that power? Is it her doing all the work, while the boys sit around talking about getting things done?

Lioness wrote:

Oh right. So all equality legislation depicts women as incapable and needing "help". :rolleyes:

Nope, but a quota for a position - that is reached by getting a proportion of the public vote - whether or not you got a percentage of the vote, is. :rolleyes:

Lioness wrote:

Explain how they could "lose out" exactly?

Well, if a male candidate had received more votes (because a majority of the population - men and women - believed/know him to be a better candidate) but the "quota" of men has already been filled, he, as a man, will not get a position. A lesser candidate (but a woman) will fill the role. She has not gotten this position through merit. The society she represents will lose out. Is that a sufficient explanation?

Lioness wrote:

Nope. Because you don't have a bulls notion about feminism and what it stands for. Your half c0cked notions and begrudgery of it have been displayed pretty well on this thread. It's almost laughable.

Your complete disregard for logic argument is hilarious.

Lioness wrote:

Yes! With the feminist movement campaigning for womens' rights, equality would/will become a reality. Both genders are equal.

You have completely missed his point.

The_Conductor

The Corinthian wrote:

No more than if I were to suggest that women are better disposed to homemaking than men. Oddly enough, I’d probably be vilified for such an observation though.

I would agree with such an examination, but only if we honestly examine the root causes and these impediments are identified through deduction rather than induction.

I agree 100% with you. I alluded to your above point in an earlier post where I suggested that some men choose to stay at home, but that most households are dual income these days out of necessity- I slightly bemused it wasn't picked up on.

Yes- we would be vilified for an observation such as- men tend to be more macho, outgoing and willing to fight a corner- which is much what I was saying, but did not spell out.

Whether by induction or deduction- if women seriously want to explore the reasons they are under-represented as a gender in the Oireachtas (and I specifically worded that- as a gender- and not as a group- as women are as much part of the population as anyone else, stating that they are a group sounds akin to acknowledging a marginalisation from the established mainstream- which is something that I do not accept), they must question themselves as to why they are not willing to include themselves as part of the body of representatives......

Being a public representative, does not perclude a man or a woman from having a family, from having their own private time, from having their own privacy, from having their own lives....... To think that it does- is instantly marginalising on its own- and we have to question- is it the case, and if so how has it come about and is it valid?

I'm not about to start debating the merits of public life- I don't have the time or the energy, I would seriously throw an open question to the floor though-

Those of you who think that women are under-represented (for whatever reasons) in the houses of the Oireachtas- would you yourself be willing to run as a public representative- and if not- do you think your reticence may be similar to the reasons that others do not?

Personally I believe that regardless of what happens the grass will always be greener on the other side of the fence for some people.

The Corinthian

smccarrick wrote:

I slightly bemused it wasn't picked up on.

Speaking only for myself, I hadn’t seen it and there’s presently far easier targets for argumentative ridicule in this thread than your good self.

Whether by induction or deduction- if women seriously want to explore the reasons they are under-represented as a gender in the Oireachtas

I would disagree with the use of inductive reasoning. By definition it is based upon observations that may not hold true in all cases, and we have had more than our fair share of outlandish observations in this thread to suggest that such a process of logic is inadvisable.

Lioness

Zulu wrote:

What exactly do you want me to expand on?

"In society - due to certain obvious differences in the sexes - some jobs tend to appeal to men more than women or vice versa."

Mary Harney is a party leader in a collation, she has power. What is she doing with that power? Is it her doing all the work, while the boys sit around talking about getting things done?

1 TD can't perform miracles, even if they are a party leader. The chain is only as strong as the weakest link. If your interested in who's or whos not doing all the work, why don't you start from the taoiseach who has most the most 'power'..

Nope, but a quota for a position - that is reached by getting a proportion of the public vote - whether or not you got a percentage of the vote, is.

I never said there should be quotas' for women re TD positions. I said parties should have them for candidates. :rolleyes:

Well, if a male candidate had received more votes...

See my response above.
You should read what I post before launching into a meaningless argument.
:rolleyes:

The Corinthian wrote:

when in reality any points it raises are at best old and clichéd.

I guess the male orientated world of politics has become a cliche since its existed since time began.. :rolleyes: I meant interesting because of the statistics.

How does showing that statistically there are fewer women in politics refute that as a result they 'can't find suitable candidates'?

Read the article again. :rolleyes:

I’ll have to ask you what root reasons and does she back any of them up?

The whole culture, atmosphere and society that surrounds the political arena.

That men are genetically predisposed to this type of behaviour and women are not.

I never said that.

have not actually argued any of your points.

No, you haven't. Instead you accompany your expletives with sarcastic statements and are unable to provide any evidence to counterclaim my points.

just saying something does not make it true, which unfortunately seems to be the basis of many of your arguments.

Speak for yourself, again. :rolleyes:
"If suddenly there were more women elected than men elected under a quota system would the..."

you’ve turned to personal attacks instead.

Oh you mean my pointing out your lack of knowledge about the topic.
:rolleyes: I posted the link about what feminism is to prove my statements and put an end to your incorrect ramblings about it. you decided to ignore it. Says it all really.

To claim that any organisation whose reason d’etre is to represent one group over an other will ultimately seek equality is a nonsense

Oh so all the feminist movements and various womens' groups that campaign for womens' status equal to men, right to equal pay, equal promotion, equal voting rights, equal job opportunities etc are all nonsense??!!! :eek:

The Corinthian

Lioness wrote:

I guess the male orientated world of politics has become a cliche since its existed since time began.. :rolleyes: I meant interesting because of the statistics.

Statistics that are at best highly superficial. For example they do not ask how many women join political parties, how many are involved at local or national level or how many run for election. Yet you’re ready to jump to conclusions and recommend a course of action without having bothered with proper examination.

Read the article again. :rolleyes:

If the logic in her argument isn’t there, it’s not going to appear regardless of how often I read it. Why don’t you educate us all at explain her proof that statistically there are fewer women in politics refute that political parties 'can't find suitable candidates'?

The whole culture, atmosphere and society that surrounds the political arena.

Want to try saying something a little less glib and clichéd?

I never said that.

Actually you did:

“ 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.”

Certainly sounds that you believe men to be predisposed to pretty negative behaviour that women are, supposedly, not.

No, you haven't. Instead you accompany your expletives with sarcastic statements and are unable to provide any evidence to counterclaim my points.

You hardly need to present that much evidence to highlight a logical fallacy, and that is all that I’ve attempted to do. All the arguments you’ve presented are based upon flawed logic and almost para-religious dogma, and all I’ve done is pointed out how this logic does not work.

Speak for yourself, again. :rolleyes:
"If suddenly there were more women elected than men elected under a quota system would the..."

Don’t misquote me - this is the second time you’ve attempted to do so. That was not my attempting to state fact, but raise a hypothetical scenario.

Oh you mean my pointing out your lack of knowledge about the topic.
:rolleyes: I posted the link about what feminism is to prove my statements and put an end to your incorrect ramblings about it. you decided to ignore it. Says it all really.

But it was completely irrelevant to the debate. Would you like to post some more irrelevant links and pretend that they have anything to do with the discussion?

Oh so all the feminist movements and various womens' groups that campaign for womens' status equal to men, right to equal pay, equal promotion, equal voting rights, equal job opportunities etc are all nonsense??!!! :eek:

Either you’re cannot understand what I’m saying or deliberately attempting to misunderstand. I did not say that such partisan organisations are nonsense, but that the belief that a partisan organisation seeks equality over the best interests of the group it represents is a nonsense.

Zulu

Firstly - I'd like to see a quota on rolly-eyes!

Lioness wrote:

"In society - due to certain obvious differences in the sexes - some jobs tend to appeal to men more than women or vice versa." :

You really want me to elaborate on that? I'll keep it brief so:
More men tend towards soldering and security, more women tend towards beauticians and nursing. Happy?

Lioness wrote:

1 TD can't perform miracles, even if they are a party leader.

She could ensure there are more female candidates for a start. Secondly, as a key menber in a colation government, she has quite alot of power actually.

Lioness wrote:

If your interested in who's or whos not doing all the work, why don't you start from the taoiseach who has most the most 'power'..

Nope - I was just interested in debunking your insulting comment that men sit around talking about doing work.

Lioness wrote:

I never said there should be quotas' for women re TD positions. I said parties should have them for candidates. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: No, in fairness, you didn't - but the exact same logic applies (just at a lower level)

Lioness wrote:

See my response above.
You should read what I post before launching into a meaningless argument.
:rolleyes:

More of the rolly eyes - like they're going outta fashion. My meaningless argument , as I've just explained isn't meaningless. Why not try to disprove it?

Lioness wrote:

I guess the male orientated world of politics has become a cliche since its existed since time began.. :rolleyes:

You wouldn't have a chip on your sholder would you?

Lioness wrote:

Oh you mean my pointing out your lack of knowledge about the topic. :rolleyes: I posted the link about what feminism is to prove my statements and put an end to your incorrect ramblings about it. you decided to ignore it. Says it all really.

You haven't disproved anything - you've just said people were wrong/argumments were wrong. The point of debate is not to say you are right, but to prove you are right.

Lioness wrote:

Oh so all the feminist movements and various womens' groups that campaign for womens' status equal to men, right to equal pay, equal promotion, equal voting rights, equal job opportunities etc are all nonsense??!!! :eek:

He's made a valid point - you've refused to acknowledge it, in your own words: says it all really!

Rredwell

No way, because as far as I can see, women are hust as capable of depraved emotions as men, and just as capable of acting on them, for good or for ill; not least when they're in positions of power.
And it's undemocratic. If a candidate achieves the quota, they are elected because they're the people's choice.
Wouldn't it be better to remove the barriers to women entering politics? I.e., Govt.-subsidised childcare; a radical re-think of how we view women in political life.

Lioness

Zulu wrote:

More men tend towards soldering and security, more women tend towards beauticians and nursing.

The exact same with politics... its all to do with society as you've admitted yourself.

She could ensure there are more female candidates for a start.

Nope. She could attempt to secure more. It wouldnt be "ensured".

debunking your insulting comment; men sit around talking

Nope. I said the male dominated government have failed to fulfil many promises. Doing nowt. Can you disprove this??

try to disprove it

What exactly?

The point of debate is not to say you are right, but to prove you are right.

Oh, I see your ignoring the link that disagrees with everything The Corinthian has said... http://www.feminist.com/resources/a...m/whatisfem.htm
Actually, I've noticed you haven't provided any evidence to back up your points. :rolleyes:

you've refused to acknowledge it,

Nope, I will not acknowledge that the mission of all equality groups to secure equality is "nonsense". Maybe you should read his opinion again...

simu

Nope. I said the male dominated government have failed to fulfil many promises.

Ok, but there's no reason to think it's because they're male-dominated that they fail or that female-dominated governments would do any better.

The Corinthian

Lioness wrote:

Oh, I see your ignoring the link that disagrees with everything The Corinthian has said... http://www.feminist.com/resources/a...m/whatisfem.htm

Actually it doesn’t, and you’ve been repeatedly challenged that this piece is irrelevant to the discussion - I note you’ve still avoided this point also.

Actually, I've noticed you haven't provided any evidence to back up your points. :rolleyes:

Evidence is necessary when attempting to prove facts, not when challenging the faulty logic of another - as people are here with respect to you.

Nope, I will not acknowledge that the mission of all equality groups to secure equality is "nonsense". Maybe you should read his opinion again...

Except that you have already accepted that feminism does not seek equality between genders but that it represents only one of those genders. This is a point that you obviously do not seem capable or willing to grasp.

simu wrote:

Ok, but there's no reason to think it's because they're male-dominated that they fail or that female-dominated governments would do any better.

Actually such an assumption makes perfect sense from the mindset of a sexist pig. The irony, I must admit, is delicious. Nietzsche had a point.

Lioness

For example they do not ask how many women join political parties, how many are involved at local or national level or how many run for election.

Why dont you do a search and find out...
But I could harzard a correct estimation : very few. That is the whole point!

u’re ready to jump to conclusions and recommend a course of action without having bothered with proper examination.

The facts are there for you in black and white. The questions you posed above, would further add weight to the truth, that is that there are few women involved. How exactly am I jumping to conclusions?!!
A course of action should be taken. Why not?

explain her proof that statistically there are fewer women in politics refute that political parties 'can't find suitable candidates'?

"parties will argue they can't find "suitable women" to run as candidates. They conveniently forget that "suitable" women learn the business of politics at local level. Women comprise 15pc of local councillors. In other words, parties are not encouraging women into local politics to begin with." Why dont you read the article again before asking questions.?. :rolleyes:

Want to try saying something a little less glib and clichéd?

Very weak response to my point.

men be predisposed to pretty negative behaviour

Nope. Your evading the actual point I made with incorrect assumptions.
You just can't deny the fact that the male dominated government hasn't done much...

highlight a logical fallacy,

Now that's an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

All the arguments you’ve presented are based upon flawed logic and almost para-religious dogma

Well thats your opinion. para-religious? :eek:

but raise a hypothetical scenario.

Yes. You rasied a hypothethical situation but you also provided a presumptious opinion on what the activities of the feminists would be in such a situation. I pointed this out. I did not misquote you!

But it was completely irrelevant to the debate.

Your rambling about what the feminist movement does and doesnt do is totally irrelevant. I posted that link to educate you on the matter. You've chosen to ignore it.

the belief that a partisan organisation seeks equality over the best interests of the group it represents is a nonsense.

Nope you didnt say that.
"To claim that any organisation whose reason d’etre is to represent one group over an other which will ultimately seek equality is nonsense".
That statement to me is nonsense.

simu

Lioness wrote:

You just can't deny the fact that the male dominated government hasn't done much...

You say this again. Given that this is a thread on the lack of women in politics rather than on the shortfalls of democracy, it seems to me that you're suggesting that the world would be governed in a better manner were politics dominated by women. Is this what you believe? I'm genuinely curious!

The Corinthian

Lioness wrote:

But I could harzard a correct estimation : very few. That is the whole point!

Yet, assuming that is the case, if very few women then join political parties in the first place, then the number of candidates is representative of those fewer members. Perhaps then you should be campaigning for quotas of women members rather than women candidates.

Of course, regardless of the numbers of women, the reason for their lack of participation is still open to debate. Somehow you’ve assumed that they are actively discouraged and that quotas are the only solution. The evidence you’ve presented for these conclusions are non-existent (if not please feel free to quote and reference it).

The facts are there for you in black and white. The questions you posed above, would further add weight to the truth, that is that there are few women involved. How exactly am I jumping to conclusions?!!

Because you’re looking at a handful of statistics, assuming their cause and applying a direct solution. Jumping to conclusion doesn’t get more blunt than that, TBH.

"parties will argue they can't find "suitable women" to run as candidates. They conveniently forget that "suitable" women learn the business of politics at local level. Women comprise 15pc of local councillors. In other words, parties are not encouraging women into local politics to begin with." Why dont you read the article again before asking questions.?. :rolleyes:

What other words, where is that demonstrated? Seriously! What evidence even in that statement, let alone reality, to support that “parties are not encouraging women into local politics to begin with”? Humour us all and spell out the logic, citing the specific wording from the above paragraph.

Very weak response to my point.

This from the individual whose previous response to me consisted mainly of more rolly-eyes than an epileptic fit? Roffle

Nope. Your evading the actual point I made with incorrect assumptions.
You just can't deny the fact that the male dominated government hasn't done much...

I’ve not denied any historical fact, merely highlighted your rather obvious prejudice against men.

Now that's an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

Actually it’s not, it’s called English.

Well thats your opinion. para-religious? :eek:

That would be one description of the rather distasteful zealotry you’re displaying.

Yes. You rasied a hypothethical situation but you also provided a presumptious opinion on what the activities of the feminists would be in such a situation. I pointed this out. I did not misquote you!

No the hypothetical situation was presumptuous; the conclusion was logically derived from that presumption. You of course only partially quoted it, which was a bit underhanded, TBH.

Your rambling about what the feminist movement does and doesnt do is totally irrelevant. I posted that link to educate you on the matter. You've chosen to ignore it.

You posted a link that is irrelevant to the discussion. If not quote how and where it is relevant or retract it.

Nope you didnt say that.
"To claim that any organisation whose reason d’etre is to represent one group over an other which will ultimately seek equality is nonsense".
That statement to me is nonsense.

Both statements actually say the same thing.

The_Conductor

Lioness- you seem to think that fact that politics and government have proportionally more men involved than women is the reason for perceived failures to deliver on what I presume are social chores and duties. Are you in fact stating that the very fact that they are men is the reason for this failure- and by implication- that were women in the same position that the situation would somehow be terribly different?

In all honesty- reading your posts has a distinct flavour of some of George Orwell's literary offerings....... Animal Farm for example.......

The grass is not always greener on the other side.......

Zulu

Lioness wrote:

The exact same with politics... its all to do with society as you've admitted yourself.

Whats your point? The point I'm making is: because there is less interested, means there will be less to chose from. This implies that there will be a smaller amount (proportionally) that are good/suitable candidates. Introducing a quota will put poorly suited candidates into positions. This is a bad idea. I don't see how your "exact same with politics" strengthens your argument.

Lioness wrote:

Nope. I said the male dominated government have failed to fulfil many promises. Doing nowt. Can you disprove this??

Most governments fail to deliver promises. I'm not going to defend the current government. I'm, also, not going to entertain your attempts to build a Straw-Man (sorry Straw-Person) argument. This government hasn't failed to fulfil promises because it's male dominated - that is a sexist attitude.

Lioness wrote:

What exactly?

or you can ignore it either way :rolleyes:

Lioness wrote:

Oh, I see your ignoring the link that disagrees with everything The Corinthian has said... http://www.feminist.com/resources/a...m/whatisfem.htm
Actually, I've noticed you haven't provided any evidence to back up your points. :rolleyes:

Nope - it's been done to death. This link doesn't prove your position.

The_Conductor

Please quit with the rolley eyes..........

Zulu

smccarrick wrote:

Please quit with the rolley eyes..........

Sorry.

BrianD3

There's little point in trying to debate with "Lioness". I'm almost sure that this is the same person who used to post inflammatory bullsh*t to boards using the nick "buttons malone".

Check out these posts by buttons malone and compare them to the posts by Lioness. Very similar posting "style".
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=27065

BrianD3

ReefBreak

BrianD3 wrote:

I'm almost sure that this is the same person who used to post inflammatory bullsh*t to boards using the nick "buttons malone".

Check out these posts by buttons malone and compare them to the posts by Lioness. Very similar posting "style".

Reading this post leaves me in no doubt that Lioness = Buttons Malone. The statements issued as fact with no evidence or backup supplied, the feminazi posturing, and the one line retorts when another poster is obviously correct on an issue, e.g:

That says it all about you. I'll let this statement of yours speak for itself.

and

Your tactic of petty comments failed and now again you are trying to undermine my presence on this thread.

Zulu

Thanks people. Very interesting. :cool:

Lioness

the reason for their lack of participation is still open to debate. Somehow you’ve assumed that they are actively discouraged

No, I also said it was society in general that discourages women from entering politics.

Jumping to conclusion

I could say the same about you... Theres a serious lack of women in politics. They are a tiny majority. And the only excuse you put forward is they are not interested or not bothered. Are you willing to venture any more?

previous response to me consisted mainly of more rolly-eyes than an epileptic fit?

Very, very, weak response.

obvious prejudice against men.

Because I think quota's for women would be a possible solution to the lack of women in politics, Because I have pointed out the male dominated government have reneged on their many promises and because I support feminism, I have an "obvious prejudice against men."??!
Actully looking at your posts, it seems you have an obvious prejudice against women... If you want I can point it out for you.!

he hypothetical situation was presumptuous; the conclusion was logically derived from that presumption.

Waffle. There was no conclusion. Just your presumptious opinion on the activities of the movement in a hypothetical scenario you dreamed up. Simple.

only partially quoted it

Yes. What difference does it make? I wasnt refering specificaly to the content in your statement.

If not quote how and where it is relevant or retract it.

You have been continually posting BS about what the feminists are, etc.
This link supported what I said. Seems your still have a determination to ignore it. Ah well.

Both statements actually say the same thing.

"the belief that a partisan organisation seeks equality over the best interests of the group it represents is a nonsense"
Maybe you could elaborate on what the best interests of the group are...

Lioness

I don't see how your "exact same with politics" strengthens your argument.

I think society and the culture we have here discourages women to enter politics. You have admitted so yourself.

This government hasn't failed to fulfil promises because it's male dominated - that is a sexist attitude.

I never said that!! I was pointing out a FACT.

it seems to me that you're suggesting that the world would be governed in a better manner were politics dominated by women.

No, I mean who knows?? I just think women should be involved more in politics. I think there should be more women in our current government. Who knows what difference it could make...


Oh yes, Just because someone expresses similar views as me about feminists, does not mean we are 1 and the same.!. Thats just devoid of logic.
BTW How can someone have the same "posting style"?!! Doesn't make sense.
I'd bet there are loads on these boards who have a no. of aliases...

The Corinthian

Lioness wrote:

No, I also said it was society in general that discourages women from entering politics.

You could also claim that AIDS was a genetically engineered CIA conspiracy, but that wouldn’t necessarily make it true either. And it is these sweeping assumptions that are debatable.

I could say the same about you... Theres a serious lack of women in politics. They are a tiny majority. And the only excuse you put forward is they are not interested or not bothered. Are you willing to venture any more?

Except that I’ve not jumped to any conclusions. All I’ve argued is that we cannot jump to conclusions. And to say that women are not interested or not bothered is neither an excuse nor a reason. If that is the case we would have to examine why they are not interested or not bothered rather than jumping to the blanket conclusion that Society is at fault.

And the realty is that to date you’ve actually not explained any of the reasons why “Society in general that discourages women”, you simply stated it dogmatically and expected us to accept it at face value.

Very, very, weak response.

TBH, I simply reflected the strength of yours.

Because I think quota's for women would be a possible solution to the lack of women in politics, Because I have pointed out the male dominated government have reneged on their many promises and because I support feminism, I have an "obvious prejudice against men."??!

To begin with, to promote something because the “male dominated government have reneged on their many promises” has noting to do with equality of genders as it has to do with you not liking the policies of a government. Secondly, it makes the assumption that women would somehow be superior (and not ‘renege’ on promises) to men, which is indeed sexist and displays a prejudice against men.

I note also that Simu directly questioned you twice on this issue, in this thread.

Actully looking at your posts, it seems you have an obvious prejudice against women... If you want I can point it out for you.!

Oh, does that mean you can’t be prejudiced against men then?

Waffle. There was no conclusion. Just your presumptious opinion on the activities of the movement in a hypothetical scenario you dreamed up. Simple.

The only presumption was the initial scenario, what followed was logically extrapolated. You might try debunking the logic if you disagree with it then rather than saying ‘waffle’. It might be a more convincing rebuttal.

Yes. What difference does it make? I wasnt refering specificaly to the content in your statement.

What difference only partially quoting something will make is that it will often change the meaning and misrepresent the original statement. Languages are funny that way.

You have been continually posting BS about what the feminists are, etc.
This link supported what I said. Seems your still have a determination to ignore it. Ah well.

And I’ve repeatedly asked you to quote the relevant arguments from that piece - I’m sure it can’t be that hard to do. In short, I’ve called your bluff.

"the belief that a partisan organisation seeks equality over the best interests of the group it represents is a nonsense"
Maybe you could elaborate on what the best interests of the group are...

For example, a trade union represents its members, the workers; it is not there to act as an ombudsman, but to gain as much from other groups - typically management - as possible for its membership. Ultimately as the trade union is not there to represent the management or protect their interests, so if they can successfully make unfair demands they will - that is their job. A trade union is not there to seek ‘equality’; it’s there to promote its members interests.

By your own admission, Feminism is not there to represent the rights of men either. It’s there to represent to rights of women. As such it’s also not there to seek ‘equality’; it’s there to promote women’s’ interests.

Of course I’m not saying that either trade unions or Feminism are undesirable; however nether is designed to act as a social leveller either. One cannot expect the prosecution in a court case to also act as an impartial judge, after all.

TBH, I don’t know how else to explain that any more plainly at this stage without the use of finger puppets.

Zulu

Lioness wrote:

I think society and the culture we have here discourages women to enter politics. You have admitted so yourself.

No, I never said that. Don't misquote me please. It's a poor way to argue, and highlights the fact that you are unprepared to listen.
I said: women and men tend towards different roles. That has nothing to do with society and culture "discouraging women", what it highlights is that men and women are different.

Lioness wrote:

I never said that!! I was pointing out a FACT.

You never said that; you were pointing out a fact? - So in one sentance you contradict yourself!
You did in fact say that.

Lioness wrote:

No, I mean who knows?? I just think women should be involved more in politics. I think there should be more women in our current government. Who knows what difference it could make...

I agree with you - but only if they are good canditates. A quota will not help.