Poll:Minimum quotas for female election candidates?

pickarooney

So which is it:

- Women don't want to enter politics for whatever reason (society, pressure, better things to be doing), so to counteract this we should introduce legislation to enforce them to become politically active and get elected, ignoring both their wishes and those of the electorate who would prefer to vote for another (nominally male) candidate.

- Women are being discouraged, even prevented, from running for election by their own parties, one of which is headed by a woman, and so action should be taken to counteract this. Who should be ultimately responsible, if not the (female) leader of such a party? Why is she not doing it?

Has anyone here ever run, or tried to run, for election? If so, what was the experience like? What are the obstacles preventing someone (male or female) previously unconnected with the party from making headway? Is it easier for, say, the daughter of an FF councillor or a man whose family has never been active in the political arena to get on the electoral list?

What percentage of independent candidates in Ireland are women? How do they do in elections compared to their male counterparts?

I don't understand the new smilies, none of them look like anything, all the good ones are missing and for some reason they're all octogonal. Boo!

Zulu

Great sum up - but I'm sure some people will choose to ignore it.

Lioness

The Corinthian wrote:

wouldn’t necessarily make it true either. And it is these sweeping assumptions that are debatable.

Its what I think. Your repetitive argument consists of denying it. Thats all. You have failed to challenge / debate my viewpoint in any way.

that I’ve not jumped to any conclusions.

You have said earlier the only reason women are not involved is lack of interest etc. That to me is jumping to conclusions.

expected us to accept it at face value.

Its what I think. Accept it or not.

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.

This government had policies that would have encouraged me to vote. Most of the policies have been unfulfilled. That is why a change of government is needed. More women should be encouraged to participate. I would just like to see more women in politics.

it makes the assumption that women would somehow be superior; I note also that Simu directly questioned you twice on this issue, in this thread.

I note also, that you have failed to notice and / or read my response to Simu's question.

You might try debunking the logic if you disagree with it

There was no logic. Just your outlandish and sarcastic opinion on what their activities would be.

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.

Have you ever heard of the various employment acts or the rights of workers etc? Likewise managers have their own rights. There are boundaries. If one party overstepped the boundaries with their "unfair demands" then they would know about it. As long as either parties' claim is lawful and within their rights, it isn't unfair. Unfair demands can't exist.

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.

Womens' interests are to seek status equal to men, have equal rights etc Because they still don't. Ultimately, these organisations' attempt to create equality. To establish women on an equal footing with men.

Lioness

Zulu wrote:

Don't misquote me please... women and men tend towards different roles, That has nothing to do with society.

Seems to me its you who is unprepared to remember what you said:
I quote:
"FYI: In society - due to certain obvious differences in the sexes - some jobs tend to appeal to men more than women or vice versa."
For the second time, why does this not apply to politics?? Aren't "roles" and jobs the same thing...

The Corinthian

Lioness wrote:

Its what I think. Your repetitive argument consists of denying it. Thats all. You have failed to challenge / debate my viewpoint in any way.

Good for you if it’s what you think, but in itself that does not make it true. I’ve challenged and questioned it, I’ve not denied it.

You have said earlier the only reason women are not involved is lack of interest etc. That to me is jumping to conclusions.

No I suggested that there are various possible reasons that may include lack of interest. I have throughout this thread simply made suggestions and not dogmatically stated spurious facts.

Its what I think. Accept it or not.

Roffle. Then it must be true.

This government had policies that would have encouraged me to vote. Most of the policies have been unfulfilled. That is why a change of government is needed. More women should be encouraged to participate. I would just like to see more women in politics.

Yet there you are implying a connection between inefficient government and the lack of women in government. It’s not an unfair deduction from this to say that you believe that women would in some way be better than men in government.

I note also, that you have failed to notice and / or read my response to Simu's question.

Really? Where?

There was no logic. Just your outlandish and sarcastic opinion on what their activities would be.

Then demonstrate the flaw in that logic. Show how it is not logical. Debunk it rather than making another meaningless sweeping statement.

Have you ever heard of the various employment acts or the rights of workers etc? Likewise managers have their own rights. There are boundaries. If one party overstepped the boundaries with their "unfair demands" then they would know about it.

Which is why, I suppose, you’re getting to know all about how we all feel about electoral gender quotas.

As long as either parties' claim is lawful and within their rights, it isn't unfair. Unfair demands can't exist.

Nice tautology.

Womens' interests are to seek status equal to men, have equal rights etc Because they still don't. Ultimately, these organisations' attempt to create equality. To establish women on an equal footing with men.

Everyone seeks to maximize their rights and status. If it all balances out equally between competing groups then super, but that would be an altruistic byproduct of self-interest. Women are no different to men in this regard, I’m afraid.

Zulu

Lioness wrote:

Seems to me its you who is unprepared to remember what you said:
I quote:
"FYI: In society - due to certain obvious differences in the sexes - some jobs tend to appeal to men more than women or vice versa."
For the second time, why does this not apply to politics?? Aren't "roles" and jobs the same thing...

Hold on a minute. Again you are misquoting me. Do you refuse to listen? Or are you attempting to twist my words in the hope that I don't notice? I never said society discourages women to enter politics. That is your spin.
I said - and hopefully for the last time - In society - due to certain obvious differences in the sexes - some jobs tend to appeal to men more than women or vice versa. This dosen't mean society discourages women. What it means is that some jobs tend to appeal to men more than women. Thus more men will apply for that job than women.

It has noting to do with discouraging anybody. It's not about oppression. :rolleyes:

Lioness wrote:

I would just like to see more women in politics.

So would I, but I wouldn't like to see weak candidates get in on a quota. This is the point.

Lioness wrote:

Womens' interests are to seek status equal to men, have equal rights etc Because they still don't. Ultimately, these organisations' attempt to create equality. To establish women on an equal footing with men.

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!! God us men are evil. Show me where you don't have equal rights.

mycroft

This government had policies that would have encouraged me to vote. Most of the policies have been unfulfilled. That is why a change of government is needed. More women should be encouraged to participate.

Mary Harney, Beverly Cooper Flynn, Condezzla Rice, Edwina Currie, Katherine Harris, and drum roll please, Margaret Thatcher.

All woman politicians who have either defrauded voters, betrayed campaign promises, behaved in a corrupt self serving manner, or abused their power.

Now you could happily throw me a list of fine female politicans (and by fine I'm not refering to that porn star who stood in the Italian elections) who have held office honourably and a much longer list of men who haven't.

Suggesting more women into politics equals cleaner better politicans is an unsubtaniated piece of claptrap. You have no evidence to support this.

But prove me wrong, find a party and start promoting, hell found a party. Women's movement. I might even vote for it (gave my 1st and 2nd preferences to women during the european elections)

But don't suggest that quotes are the answer.

Lioness

pickarooney wrote:

Women don't want to enter politics

Who says they don't want to?! Have you got evidence to prove such a claim?

to counteract this we should introduce legislation to enforce them to become politically active

Not enforce, to encourage. What I said was that parties should have a quota for nomination of women candidates. The female applicants would already be politically active, they would have agendas, know their policies etc.

ignoring both their wishes

No, because they already have an interest in politics. They want a political career.

Who should be ultimately responsible, if not the (female) leader of such a party? Why is she not doing it?

I agree. Why isn't she.?

mycroft wrote:

Mary Harney, Beverly Cooper Flynn, Condezzla Rice, Edwina Currie, Katherine Harris, Margaret Thatcher. woman politicians who have either defrauded voters, betrayed campaign promises, behaved in a corrupt self serving manner, or abused their power.

What exactly has this got to do with the topic??!! Over half of those stated aren't even Irish!! Out of interest what has C.Rice alleged to have done?

Now you could happily throw me a list of fine female politicans (and by fine I'm not refering to that porn star who stood in the Italian elections) who have held office honourably and a much longer list of men who haven't.

Again, nothing got to do with the topic.

Suggesting more women into politics equals cleaner better politicans is an unsubtaniated piece of claptrap.

I agree. Because who knows what difference if any there would be..
I just think there should be more women in government. They should be encouraged to voice their views. What would it be like if there was a female majority in government...

But don't suggest that quotes are the answer.

I said they could be a possible solution.

mycroft

The female applicants would already be politically active, they would have agendas, know their policies etc.

So we pick candiates and those who govern, not on fitness, ability education and experience, but rather on their genitalia?

What exactly has this got to do with the topic??!! Over half of those stated aren't even Irish!! Out of interest what has C.Rice alleged to have done?

You said that a solution to the fact that governments fail us so we should have more woman in politics. I pointed out a list off the top of my head of female politicians who have failed, or abused their position of power. Therefore pointing out that woman are just as capable of all the loathsome chacters of their male counterpoints. In essence I attacked your conclusion that a more female dominated politican make up would automatically be better.

and Ms Rice acted in part of the dupping of the US people in the surpious reasons for war. I don't trust anyone who has an oil tanker named after them to make a objective view of the middle east.

But don't suggest that quotes are the answer.

I said they could be a possible solution.

Okay simply rephrasing what I said, isn't a rebuttal.

sceptre

Lioness wrote:

Who says they don't want to?! Have you got evidence to prove such a claim?

I believe he was offering this quoted-dramatically-out-of-context half-statement as one of two options rather than offering an opinion. The entire quote's up the page and sounds a little different when you read the intro and past the first six or seven words. It's a windmill, not an evil giant.


(heck, if you just use all the letters I've used in this post you can probably make something oppressive out of it. I think I've used them all except the evil 'z' (now covered))

Lioness

Zulu wrote:

Do you refuse to listen?

Its you who refuses to answer the question I have posed, twice. Your ramblings do not hide this fact.
Again, I quote: "FYI: In society - due to certain obvious differences in the sexes - some jobs tend to appeal to men more than women or vice versa."
Appeal more- why? Why does your statement not apply to politics?

I wouldn't like to see weak candidates get in on a quota.

Who knows whos a weak candidate or not?? Its up to the parties to choose who carries their party's banner. Its a shame that women are a tiny minority for this i.e. 12pc women V 88pc men (as quoted in the article I posted 1st). Now whats to be done about it?? No one here has given a possible solution.

Show me where you don't have equal rights.

Some links for you to ponder:
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2002/05/03/story27835.asp
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2003/03/23/story484462933.asp

Lioness

The Corinthian wrote:

I’ve challenged and questioned it

No you haven't. All you have done is denied it. You have failed to challenge / debate my viewpoint in any way.

Then it must be true.

Well, why don't you prove my viewpoint untrue then? Challenge it...
Then again, if your just going to spout another batch of denials theres no point.

Yet there you are implying a connection between inefficient government and the lack of women in government.

Theres no need for any connection to be implyed.

It’s not an unfair deduction from this to say that you believe that women would in some way be better than men in government.

Yes, it is an unfair deduction considering I've addressed this statement before! Must be 3 times now. post #89

Which is why, I suppose, you’re getting to know all about how we all feel about electoral gender quotas; Nice tautology.

Smarmy sarcasm. Again, you fail to challenge what I said.

If it all balances out equally between competing groups then super, but that would be an altruistic byproduct of self-interest. Women are no different to men in this regard, I’m afraid.

Why don't you just say the above in plain english. Instead of hiding behind a cryptic translation. By-product of self interest?

The_Conductor

Lioness wrote:

Some links for you to ponder:
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2002/05/03/story27835.asp
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2003/03/23/story484462933.asp

From the self same links you just posted:

"The ESRI report, which was used as part of this European-wide study, suggested three-quarters of the current gender wage gap could be explained by variations in labour market participation between men and women, in terms of age and experience/length of service."

and

"There is no earnings difference by family status between men and women in Denmark and Finland, and few countries in the EU make significant public provision for childcare for those under three. Only Sweden, Finland, Denmark and France have childcare services that cover more than a third of small children."

and

"women were still bound by outside responsibilities such as childcare and were discriminated in their careers because of it"

I.e. its a trade off between career and family life, that women are more likely to choose to take, despite it being to the detriment of their careers.......

This is a point I among others have made previously in the thread.........

Shane

The Corinthian

Lioness wrote:

No you haven't. All you have done is denied it. You have failed to challenge / debate my viewpoint in any way.

I have repeatedly challenged you to prove your assertions rather than simply dogmatically stating them as fact without a shred of evidence. If you claim you have, why don’t you humour us all and recap on it.

Well, why don't you prove my viewpoint untrue then? Challenge it...
Then again, if your just going to spout another batch of denials theres no point.

Your viewpoint is not true unless proven to be untrue - logic doesn’t work that way. It is untrue until you can prove it. Hell, forget proving it, I’d just be happy with seeing any argument as to how you arrived at your conclusions.

Theres no need for any connection to be implyed.

Yet the implication was plainly there to see by several people. Like Simu - who you never answered, and if so where? I noticed you neglected to respond to that query from my previous post.

Yes, it is an unfair deduction considering I've addressed this statement before! Must be 3 times now. post #89

It does not address the accusation that has been made of you, however.

Smarmy sarcasm. Again, you fail to challenge what I said.

Actually, the first is irony and the second was pointing out that you’d just come out with a meaningless tautology (‘As long as no unfair demands are made there can be no unfair demands...’ one has to love the logic).

Why don't you just say the above in plain english. Instead of hiding behind a cryptic translation. By-product of self interest?

That was plain English. As I suggested earlier, if it’s too difficult I’ll use finger puppets for you in future.

While we’re at it, you might address the point now that you finally seem to comprehend it.

Zulu

Lioness wrote:

Its you who refuses to answer the question I have posed, twice. Your ramblings do not hide this fact.

This is getting annoying.

Lioness wrote:

Again, I quote: "FYI: In society - due to certain obvious differences in the sexes - some jobs tend to appeal to men more than women or vice versa."
Appeal more- why?

Differences between the sexes. I've already spelled this out for you.

Lioness wrote:

Why does your statement not apply to politics?

I does. I never said it didn't. :rolleyes: But you might tak a moment to notice I don't use the words, oppress or discourage.

pickarooney

Lioness wrote:

I have failed to debate my viewpoint in any way.

Seriously, don't ever go into politics, film-editing or dressmaking.

JustHalf

The Corinthian wrote:

Your viewpoint is not true unless proven to be untrue - logic doesn’t work that way. It is untrue until you can prove it.

Logic doesn't work like that either, ****.

Lioness wrote:

Who knows whos a weak candidate or not?? Its up to the parties to choose who carries their party's banner. Its a shame that women are a tiny minority for this i.e. 12pc women V 88pc men (as quoted in the article I posted 1st). Now whats to be done about it?? No one here has given a possible solution.

An enforced quota system, that would force a party to name any particular number of women, means that it would not really be up to the party who carries their banner. The quota makes choices for them.

You have given a possible solution to the problem yourself, by means of the quota. But just because a solution exists does not mean that this particular solution is the best course of action, or even that it is better than the problem. If I were to be dumped into an incinerator, I doubt I'd still feel tired.

It's pretty rich for someone who is obviously bigotted against men to make statement after statement against bigotry. Face it, you're bigotted against men. The reason why the current, male-dominated government is failing to do a good job has next to nothing to do with their gender, and a lot more to do with the fact that they seem to be crap at their job.

Perhaps I should expect this from someone who rejects Nietzsche because he's old and German? That's bigotry right there.

I suppose whether or not you should support the quota system boils down to the following: do you believe that a democratic electoral system is the best way of choosing our representatives, or should we just segment our population into groups and make sure that numerically there's enough men, women, blacks, asians, whites, gays, straights, lesbians, native Irish, immigrants, 2nd generation Irish, left-handers, right-handers, married, singles, etc?

This kind of nonsense is a sickening affront to democracy.

bonkey

This thread seems to be stuck in a rut of nothing but counter-recriminations.

If it hasn't changed in 24 hours, it will be closed

lucernarian

IMO, Perhaps the problem of the imbalance of the sexes in politics is simply because that fewer women participate in politics at even grass-roots level?
Mabye we should be encouraging women to be more politically active in the same way as we are sort-of encouraging young people to become active in politics.

The_Conductor

To_be_confirmed wrote:

IMO, Perhaps the problem of the imbalance of the sexes in politics is simply because that fewer women participate in politics at even grass-roots level?
Mabye we should be encouraging women to be more politically active in the same way as we are sort-of encouraging young people to become active in politics.

I pointed this out earlier in the thread.
There are proportionally fewer women active at grassroots level than there are nationally. The exact stats are earlier in this thread.

Unfortunately- have to agree with Bonkey on this one- we're going in a circle of recrimination, reraking old territory. I can't see that we have any new directions to take this argument?

S.

The Corinthian

JustHalf wrote:

Logic doesn't work like that either

Actually, it does. Logic will generally come to a proof using deduction, which requres that one must arrive at a truth by following a path of varifiable evidence.

The only exception to this is inductive logic, which is a misnomer, where one bases one's conclusions on a series of observations. The problem with this is that it is based upon sweeping generalisations that assume that the truth will always hold true (e.g. "all people I've seen are white, therefore all people must be white").

Spacedog

You would assume that women voters would vote for female candidates after gaining their right to vote. ensuring 50/50 balance, yet they seemed to vote for men anyway? then you have the thatcher factor, more evil nazi dragon than woman, Mary Harney-The Hutt springs to mind also.

Lioness

The Corinthian wrote:

I have repeatedly challenged you to prove your assertions rather than simply stating them as fact without a shred of evidence.

Its a viewpoint, an opinion, an observation! All you are doing is denying it, without a shread of evidence to say why. why don’t you humour us all and challenge it.

Your viewpoint is not true unless proven to be untrue, logic doesn’t work that way.

?

Like Simu - who you never answered; I noticed you neglected to respond to that query from my previous post

post #89, about 2pgs ago.
I never said women do a better job in government, But I would like to see them more fairly represented. Who knows, if any what difference it would make. This is the last time I'm making this statement.

It does not address the accusation that has been made of you, however.

What accusation exactly?? I have already addressed all "accusations"!

Actually, the first is irony and the second was pointing out that you’d just come out with a meaningless tautology

In other words, you again, failed to challenge what I said. Maybe its time you took your own advice and try to come up with more convincing rebuttals instead of relying on your tried and tested sense of irony and sarcasm.

That was plain English

So equality is bad cos its a by-product of self-interest, in your opinion, ??! Wheres the logic and common sense in that, I don't know.

JustHalf wrote:

But just because a solution exists does not mean that this particular solution is the best course of action, or even that it is better than the problem.

Yes, I said quotas could be a possible solution. They may or may not work. But some action should be taken.

The reason why the current, male-dominated government is failing to do a good job has next to nothing to do with their gender, and a lot more to do with the fact that they seem to be crap at their job.

Yes. I agree. Although theres no excuse for them being cr@p at their jobs. They've been involved in politics for years and years.

someone who rejects Nietzsche because he's old and German?

I dont think his "words of wisdom" belonged here or added anything to the argument. That is all.

bigotry right there.

Yes. Its bigotry right there to leave the situation as it is. So far, there has been no other solutions put forward to balance the situation out.

do you believe that a democratic electoral system is the best way of choosing our representatives,

Yes, it should be democratic.
Women make up just over half the population yet they're a tiny minority in government. I don't think thats democratic at all, do you? Before you start diverting the discussion to the demographics of the land try and stick to the topic at hand, :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Lioness wrote:

Its a viewpoint, an opinion, an observation! All you are doing is denying it, without a shread of evidence to say why. why don’t you humour us all and challenge it.

What is the basis for you forming that opinion? That is the challenge that others and I have repeatedly made. You have not proffered an answer.

If you have, feel free to point to where you put forward your evidence; but to date you’ve given little more than meaningless links to Feminist dogma and refused to articulate what is so relevant about them.

?

You cannot state something and take it as true unless proven otherwise. The onus is upon you to prove that your opinions, when stated as fact, are indeed that. Not the other way around.

post #89, about 2pgs ago.
I never said women do a better job in government, But I would like to see them more fairly represented. Who knows, if any what difference it would make. This is the last time I'm making this statement.

You’re backtracking now. Blaming “male dominated government” for its failings and suggesting that women should be more involved does not sound like you think it would not make any difference.

What accusation exactly?? I have already addressed all "accusations"!

The accusation was of your barely hidden misandry.

In other words, you again, failed to challenge what I said. Maybe its time you took your own advice and try to come up with more convincing rebuttals instead of relying on your tried and tested sense of irony and sarcasm.

The irony of the first statement was that you had suggested that an unjust demand would be met with hostility, by the majority, just as your ‘opinion’ is now. The second was showing up the fact that you were coming out with a tautology - I even went so far as to explain it to you. Both were valid rebuttals, even if they went over your head.

So equality is bad cos its a by-product of self-interest, in your opinion, ??! Wheres the logic and common sense in that, I don't know.

The common sense is that self-interest does not seek equality, thus if by accident equality is achieved while pursuing self-interest - it is just that; by accident or ,as I referred to it, as an altruistic by-product.

I dont think his "words of wisdom" belonged here or added anything to the argument. That is all.

I don’t think you understood them, TBH.

Yes. Its bigotry right there to leave the situation as it is. So far, there has been no other solutions put forward to balance the situation out.

No one has suggested keeping the status quo. What people have suggested is finding out properly why women are less involved in politics rather than rushing in with a half-baked solution based upon an unproven opinion.

lucernarian

Women have the power to become involved in politics to the same extent as men. They have themselves to blame if they find it "undemocratic".

Lioness

Zulu wrote:

This is getting annoying.

Isn't it...

I never said it didn't.

You never said it does. I had to point it out for you.

I don't use the words, oppress or discourage.

No, you use the word appeal. Appeal more or less to.

due to certain obvious differences in the sexes

And how do these "certain obvious differences" arise that make make politics less appealing to women?? Society. As you have said yourself.

pickarooney wrote:

Seriously, don't ever go into politics, film-editing or dressmaking.

Seriously, who are you to advise me on career choices?!
pickarooney? pickasn0t more like.

Zulu

Lioness wrote:

You never said it does. I had to point it out for you

I made the point, didn't I? But thanks for pointing that out. :rolleyes:

Lioness wrote:

No, you use the word appeal. Appeal more or less to

Are you agreeing with my point or disagreeing? ...or just plain and simply repeating what I've said in a futile effort to sound like you're making sence?

Lioness wrote:

And how do these "certain obvious differences" arise that make make politics less appealing to women??

Natral physical make-up; genitics. Similar to the reason cows eat grass - not because other cows encourage them to do so - but because they are predisposed to do so.

Lioness wrote:

Society. As you have said yourself.

Nope, yet again you misquote me/don't listen/hear what you want to hear. I have never said that. See my above point.

Lioness wrote:

Seriously, who are you to advise me on career choices?!
pickarooney? pickasn0t more like.

Ohh a personal insult - final it's beginning to unravel.

bonkey

Lioness wrote:

Yes, I said quotas could be a possible solution. They may or may not work. But some action should be taken.

Let me see if I understand this correctly...

politics is male-dominated. You see this as wrong, and that some action should be taken. Correct so far?

Now...what I don't get is why can't women who are interested in politics start taking some action? The first thing which they could do - and aren't doing that I'm aware of - is encouraging other women to be more politically active.

Not only that...but isn't it these men - who you insist are crap at their jobs - who would have to institute reform like quota's. Sounds a bit counter-intuitive to me....you want the people who are crap at their jobs to implement something to bring in more fresh blood (of a different gender) who may or may not be better.

Well, surely if enough people actually thought that way, there'd be no need for quota's? And if enough people don't think that way....wouldn't the imposition of such quota's be against the national interest?

Although theres no excuse for them being cr@p at their jobs. They've been involved in politics for years and years.

They get voted for by both genders. If they're crap at their jobs, then its because they're tolerated by the populace, not by any particular gender.

Yes. Its bigotry right there to leave the situation as it is. So far, there has been no other solutions put forward to balance the situation out.

Education and encouragement would be my first choices.

Look at how the issue of young voters is being tackled - particularly in the US. You don't see anyone saying that we should have a quota of under-25 TDs, or that the allowable vote should be adjusted so that the under-25s represent the correct percentage of the vote compared to their position in society, or anything like that.

Nope. Instead, you get figures who the popualtion sub-section (the youth in my case here) identify with, who go on major campaigns to encourage the youth to vote. Hell, even those wrestlers (used to be the WWF, no idea what they're called these days) got on board 4 years ago, pleading to young wrestling fans to vote in the Presidentials and to get involved in having a say in their nation's future.

Until such options have been seriously implemented and given a chance to show an improvement, failure, or to highlight underlying problems, then any more intrusive form of correction (a la quotas) is - in my opinion at least - premature and downright dangerous.

Women make up just over half the population yet they're a tiny minority in government. I don't think thats democratic at all, do you?

Why isn't it democratic? Who is voting for the men over the women when they are on the ballot? Both genders, no? So how can it be undemocratic when the people you claim are disadvantaged by the system are helping to disadvantage themselves when the opportunity to do something about it arises?

What - for example - is to stop women who are interested in being in politics from forming a new party and seeking the women's vote on those grounds to redress the balance?

Furtthermore, Youth make up a significant proportion of the voting populace, and are effectively entirely unrepresented in office. Do you think that this is also undemocratic?

And how far down the line should we go with this? What other groups should we recognise? Ethnic minorities? What about religions? Socio-economic background?

jc

Lioness

bonkey wrote:

politics is male-dominated. You see this as wrong,

No, unfair and just not democratic.

what I don't get is why can't women who are interested in politics start taking some action?

I think its because of the general consensus created by society, roles, culture, media etc surrounding the political arena.

but isn't it these men - who you insist are crap at their jobs

I never said that. I think it was 'Justhalf' who insisted that.

Education and encouragement would be my first choices.

Yes. I agree. But there are already a no. of womens movements / orgs etc. for this purpose such as the centre for womens advancement in politics. I'm pretty sure this 1 is based in Ireland. Anyway, I don't think they have been promoted enough... I hadnt heard about them before.

quotas is - in my opinion at least - premature and downright dangerous.

So you would be in favour of implementing them in the long run? As a last resort? Because thats what you seem to be implying.

Who is voting for the men over the women when they are on the ballot? Both genders, no? So how can it be undemocratic when the people you claim are disadvantaged by the system are helping to disadvantage themselves when the opportunity to do something about it arises?

Theres not a proportionate amount of women on the ballot paper in the 1st place!! So it isnt actually possible for female voters to negate the disadvantage.

Youth make up a significant proportion of the voting populace, and are effectively entirely unrepresented in office. Do you think that this is also undemocratic?

I think the lack of young voters is because of the general perception they have of politics - its boring!

And how far down the line should we go with this? What other groups should we recognise? Ethnic minorities? What about religions? Socio-economic background?

Kind of going a bit off topic...

Lioness

Zulu wrote:

But thanks for pointing that out.

Your welcome.

Are you agreeing with my point or disagreeing

No, just informing you that you used the word "appeals less to" instead of the word oppression or discourage.

Natral physical make-up; genitics

So politics is "less appealing" for women (you have said this about 2 posts ago), because of their "physical make-up and genetics" ,??!! That statement is disgraceful in this day and age and is nothing short of discrimination. But your discriminatory attitude gives weight to the point I was making. Its these attitudes that create the barrier against women in politics.

I have never said that.

I quote you " FYI: In society...."
Geez, you might wanna remember what you actually said!!