Equal rights for women, not preferential treatment

the_syco

metrovelvet wrote:

Condoleeza Rice for example is a bright woman, but how seriously do you think these pigs take her when she goes abroad.

She a black woman. She's Bush's personal "equal rights" example. She's also not bad at her job, but needs more experience.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

You've clearly never been involved in recruitment.

In politics we don't have to vote in a woman 'cos we have to keep the female percentage. We vote a woman in 'cos of her hard work. And if she leaves for a few months (a baby), it'll be quite hard getting back into the ring.

metrovelvet wrote:

A woman can do this, if she has a couple of nannies to raise her kids for her. And even at that an electoral body or a even HR would have their doubts about her ability to commit.

As I said above, you can't have kids if you want to succeed in politics.

=-=

Do the long hours, get used to the grilling from the media, to the abuse from the other party, your own party, the public, and never stop. Not for a second, not for a baby. And then, if we like you, we may elect you. Or not.

metrovelvet

fly_agaric wrote:

We'd have destroyed the Earth by now so the question is somewhat moot...

You'll see. Hillary will start a nuclear píssing contest with the Chinese or the Arabs or something! (/jk):)

When there is no fancy modern technology to help out, alot of people must be stuck with doing drudge work in order to survive. Someone is going to be "in the kitchen" (bashing roots, grinding up corn on a quern or something, churning butter). Someone still is but it takes much less time and effort now.:) This "equality" stuff can't really be persued with out the miracles of modern science (electricity, motors, machines, etc etc etc, ....birth control).

What are you saying? If women had been let out of kitchens that the earth would be destroyed by now?

I hate to think of what youd have to say of the illegal mexicans were let out of NYC kitchens!

God knows what Hillary will do. It depends on who shes trying to please. You know, the palestinian sympathiser who suddenly discovered Jewish roots when she was campaigning for NY State Senate.

Judt

We vote a woman in 'cos of her hard work.

Precisely, same reason you'd vote for a man, ideally.

And if she leaves for a few months (a baby), it'll be quite hard getting back into the ring.

See, that's a personal choice. It's a sexist stereotype, if you will, to say that only men can largely "give up" on their family (IE only see them once ina while) to pursue a career. Women can make this choice too, even to the point of being able to have an abortion if they got pregnant entirely by accident and didn't want to stifle their careers. Nobody says "You must stay with your family." That's a choice.

As I said above, you can't have kids if you want to succeed in politics.

Like all those men who leave their wives to mind the kids while they run off and do it? It's a sexist view to think that that can only run one way.

Do the long hours, get used to the grilling from the media, to the abuse from the other party, your own party, the public, and never stop. Not for a second, not for a baby. And then, if we like you, we may elect you. Or not.

That's the game.

biko

The Corinthian wrote:

Rubbish. There are many jobs that many people simply don’t have the psychological, physical or mental aptitude for, independent of their gender, creed or race. That’s simply a fact of life.

Additionally, when choosing someone for a job, be it in a company or in an elected office, we don’t choose them on the basis that they’re “OK”, we choose them as they are the best available choice.

I really do find the idea of imposing gender quotas on democracy quite disturbing. We might as well juts give up the ghost on the whole democratic idea and call ourselves an oligarchy if that’s the road we’re taking, TBH. It’s also a policy that seeks to redress a perceived imbalance without bothering to understand what causes it in the first place.

And if not enough women were elected to meet the gender quota? I assume we would have a hung parliament then.

The problem is that the old school tie is only worn by men. Men that went the same school and moved in the same circles (freemasons etc) will help each other up the ladder in society. As the old fat cats die off and women moves to higher positions in the legal and civil system I hope the old school tie and secret handshakes will slowly loose ground.

SeanW

"Positive discrimination" is an oxymoron as far as I'm concerned. The spin/propoganda value of this statement is immense though, even though a more realistic term might be "Inverted discrimination" but that doesn't sound so nice and fluffy. I agree with the OPs view.

The Corinthian

biko wrote:

The problem is that the old school tie is only worn by men. Men that went the same school and moved in the same circles (freemasons etc) will help each other up the ladder in society. As the old fat cats die off and women moves to higher positions in the legal and civil system I hope the old school tie and secret handshakes will slowly loose ground.

What on Earth are you talking about? Are you suggesting that there’s a Masonic conspiracy to keep women out of politics? Or only ex-pupils of certain schools need apply for the Dail? Or either of the above for most jobs (I certainly accept it happens in some jobs) for that matter. Seriously, try to actually have some facts before going for the conspiracy theories.

There are fewer women in elected office because there are fewer women running. There are fewer women running because there are fewer women selected to run by the parties. And there are fewer women selected to run for parties because there are fewer women who join and get involved in the political parties. Do the math.

If people really want to get more women elected, then they should look at the reasons they don’t get involved in politics in the first place rather than attributing this to asinine tin-foil hat theories.

johnnyskeleton

Is there any evidence to suggest that the increase in women in the English Labour party is due to positive discrimination? Could it not be because now there are more women confident enough to become politicians?

Dontico wrote:

quote:
Originally Posted by John_C
Positive discrimination isn't always about the individual. An equally important question is wheather the standard of government will improve with more women involved. If it will, then it could be worth discriminating against others to get them there.

*claps for dictatorship*.

I would be of the opinion that the people best suited to running our country (or indeed any country) are not being elected. I infer this from the observation that the people who get elected, are not neccessarily good governors but good at being elected. I'm not saying there is a better system, but John_C's comments are correct in theory. It is not incompatible with our system of democracy. If a party can run a man or a woman, both of whom are equally qualified for the job, but they know that the standard of government will improve with more women involved, then it is perfectly acceptable for them to choose the woman over the man.

MontgomeryClift

Where's the campaign for equal employment in the construction industry? That's 125,000 jobs for women if they get 50% representation in construction. There's only 83 jobs to be had as TDs in the Dáil. What about the other 124,917 women left in 'the kitchen.' It seems it's alright to leave the dirty, difficult, poorly paid and thankless jobs like construction almost entirely to men.

If you're going to aim for 50% then it should be so from meanest to greatest. Otherwise it's just envy and greed under the cover of 'equality.'

Jackie laughlin

When recruiting to jobs anyone with practical experience knows that once the nutters and the unqualified have been excluded, there's usually a number remaining. Depending on the job (specialisation, seniority, experience etc.) that number can vary. A decision must then be made, a preference must be expressed. I wish I had a few quid for the number of post-interview briefings which I've given to unsuccessful candidates where I had to say, "There was nothing wrong. We had just one vacancy and we preferred another candidate." OK, there are rare occasions when a candidate shows as exceptional and decision is easy. In the real world it is very often possible to appoint a woman without behaving unjustly towards a man.

Of course quotas discriminate. There is nothing inherently wrong in discrimination. Injustices arise when someone of less ability or less suitable is appointed or selected. Quotas can be stated as targets giving great flexibility to people doing the choosing. We could aim for, say, 15% over a number of elections. Slow progress but hardly going to upset a man of any substance!

Women in politics will not change government. Women unsurprisingly can be socialist, liberal or conservative. The argument that women should be elected because they will bring some unspecified female perspective is both nonsense and sexist.

fly_agaric

metrovelvet wrote:

What are you saying? If women had been let out of kitchens that the earth would be destroyed by now?

LOL. Just "bringing the fun in", adding a bit of light relief you know...
I'm unsure the world would be very different to how it is now really.

If Earth survives Bush, it can survive Hillary.:)

Dontico

johnnyskeleton wrote:

I would be of the opinion that the people best suited to running our country (or indeed any country) are not being elected. I infer this from the observation that the people who get elected, are not neccessarily good governors but good at being elected. I'm not saying there is a better system, but John_C's comments are correct in theory. It is not incompatible with our system of democracy. If a party can run a man or a woman, both of whom are equally qualified for the job, but they know that the standard of government will improve with more women involved, then it is perfectly acceptable for them to choose the woman over the man.

how could you posibly know that electing women would be better?
the whole point of democracy is that people are given the choice of who they want to represent them. if they pick "the wrong ones", then the opposition have to do a better next time to convince the public.
lack of education is the only reall barrier from stoping people picking the candidates that would be best for the job.

Judt

I would be of the opinion that the people best suited to running our country (or indeed any country) are not being elected. I infer this from the observation that the people who get elected, are not neccessarily good governors but good at being elected. I'm not saying there is a better system, but John_C's comments are correct in theory. It is not incompatible with our system of democracy. If a party can run a man or a woman, both of whom are equally qualified for the job, but they know that the standard of government will improve with more women involved, then it is perfectly acceptable for them to choose the woman over the man.

Nobody ever said democracy was the best form of government, it's just better than most of the rest we've ever tried. The problem with your logic is that it is presumed that there are an equal number of men and women capable of winning an election, or with a similar skill level in every profession under the sun and so forth.

As to the issue of women running off to have baby's and thus stopping their careers, well tough! That's a choice you make. The choice is there, unlike in the old days when you were told what to do. You make the choices. Society shouldn't buck up because a woman has taken a few months out to raise her child. That's a personal choice.

simu

MontgomeryClift wrote:

How can you know if having as many women as men in parliament will make life better for the millions of women represented in that parliament? Is there a claim there that a man will represent his male/female constituency with a male bias? If so, won't a woman represent the same constituency with a female bias? Therefore every constituency is going to have an unfair representation, either female or male.

Yes, representation will never be 100% fair but at least, we can have more variety within this unfair representation, that reflects the variety of the electorate. I have no delusions of the world becoming a better place if we had more women in power everywhere but I do think that on average, issues affecting women would be dealt with better if there were more women in politics.

Also, changes to the system that made it more attractive to women might also make it more attractive to potentially good male politicians who are put off by the present set-up too.

Nietzschean

metrovelvet wrote:

2. Stop school segregation

Sorry, what has that got to do with anything? maybe promote technical subjects in girls schools, but by enlarge both single gender schools(boys and girls) perform better than the mixed variety........

metrovelvet

Perform better how?

How do they measure performance or the successful individual?

Dr Galen

why has the discussion tended only to look at politics. Surely thats really only a marginal career pathway for most of us.

what about other fields, where either men or women dominate?

look at my job, for example, i'm one of 3 males who graduate within a class of 60 odd.........so should we have positive discrimation there in the name of equality and force more men into the career of nursing?
or teaching, there's another one, dominated by females. there is nothing really about either job that prohibits men from working in them, no invisible barriers or old boys clubs.

I firmly believe in wuality regardless of gender, ethnicity etc etc, but all this equality talk annoys me when it focuses purely on women. European Womens Day is a great thing, let all the girls show off, and prove how good they are. Lets talk about the issues surrounding womens issues and try and sort them as best we can. But lets also have an European Mens Day too. Surely in the name of equality across the board......;)

Dontico

mens day.
awareness about canser that effects men.
the right to pay the same issurance rates.
right to defend themselves against women when being hit in the balls.
abolish "womens officers" in colleges.

johnnyskeleton

Dontico wrote:

how could you posibly know that electing women would be better?

I don't, and if you re-read my post you'll find that I never said that it would be. My point is that sometimes it is legitimate to prefer a candidate because of their gender. If for example I ran a women's magazine and advertised a job and two equally qualified journalists applied (a man and a woman) it is not discrimination if I choose the woman if I know that a woman is more likely to confer a benefit on my magazine. It would only be discrimination if I chose a less qualified woman over a more qualified man on those grounds.

So if it was known that being a woman is a benefit in politics, then (and only then) it would be legitimate to choose a woman over an equally qualified man.

judt wrote:

Nobody ever said democracy was the best form of government

Neither did I. I noted that a good politican is not necessarily a good governor.

judt wrote:

The problem with your logic is that it is presumed that there are an equal number of men and women capable of winning an election, or with a similar skill level in every profession under the sun and so forth.

Not at all. If there was one man and one woman, both of whom are equally qualified for the job, but the party knows (for whatever reason) that the standard of government will improve with more women involved, then the woman would be a better candidate because she would improve the standard of government more than the man. If this is true then it is not discrimination, it is choosing the best person for the job.

In any case this is all hypothetical because no one has adduced evidence that discrimination in politics is a reality. Can anyone point to a woman being put forward for election over a better qualified man?

J.S. Pill

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Although a legal career is similar in many ways to a political one, there is perhaps a societal prejudice which may prevent women succeeding in politics. This is because (and here I get into speculation) men want another man to lead them, and it is strange, often threatening to the male mind to be led by a woman. Unfortunately, many women feel the same way and they also want to be led by a man rather than a woman. At any rate, being led by a man is not threatening to the female mind (or at least they don't let on).

Perhaps we are being a little speculative here but I think we can accept that there is a large element of thruth in this notion. If we accept that imposing de jure gender balance quotas amounts to unacceptable discrimination, then the only real course of action we have left to address our imbalance is to have individual parties undertake to promote the role of women in politics and to make it easier to get involved etc.

But given the above tendency of the electorate would it not be ever so slightly suicidal for an individual party to put forward a large amount of female canditates if other parties didn't do so to the same extent??

By the way: Hands up all the women here!:rolleyes:

Nevyn

There is no work life balance for those who seek election to and who take up posts as members of the Dail.

This effects all those running and all those who hold a seat, it is simply not family friendly and unless we are looking at a system which would be fairer on parents both mother's and father's and the children then the relatity is that
until there are enough changes in soictey then there will not be more women as public repasentives, or parents for that matter.

simu

nurse_baz wrote:

why has the discussion tended only to look at politics. Surely thats really only a marginal career pathway for most of us.

Aye but politicians have sway over so much...

johnnyskeleton

Thaedydal wrote:

it is simply not family friendly and unless we are looking at a system which would be fairer on parents both mother's and father's and the children

This may be true, but at the same time it seems to me that if you want to get elected you need to be "the family man" or "the family woman". There have been so many scandals about politicians having affairs and being gay, so a single person of either gender might be looked at with a bit of mistrust by the media (and consequently the electorate).

Jackie laughlin

"Work life balance" is no more than a buzz phrase with about as much meaning as "going forward". Work is part of life. Some people like to work and have satisfying jobs. If they are sensible people, they realise that satisfaction can also be found in their families. They then get on with living. Others are not so fortunate either in terms of their income, employment, attitude or wisdom.

Neither politics nor anything else will be changed by gender equality in participation because men and and women are ESSENTIALLY alike.

Zombrex

Judt wrote:

I think that this is bullcrap. In the Labour party in the UK they have managed to up their numbers of females in the EU parliament by selecting lists of candidates for the party to vote on - a list peppered with women, minorities and so on to offer "equality". In the conservative and other parties where the whole issue is open to a full vote, there are significantly less women.

I think you are getting two issues here confused.

One is the forcing of quotas for seats in parliament by law.

The second is political parties choosing a woman to run for a seat over men and other women

The first I am very opposed to since it is undemocratic to define a characteristic, be it physical such as race or gender, or political such as "one must agree with the government", that one must fit for one to be elected as a representative of the people.

But I've no issue at all with the political parties deciding that they are going to run a woman instead of a man for a seat in the Dial (or where ever). The argument that this will leave out the "best and the brightest" seems a little bizarre since the best and brightest is defined by if you can get elected or not. The criteria for any political party is the question can this person get elected. If they can then what is the issue? The political parties might be all for getting more women into the Dial or English Parliament, but I doubt they would be prepared to try this if they seriously thought they would lose a lot of seats. And if the woman can get elected then whats the difference?

DadaKopf

metrovelvet wrote:

4. Evaluate as Declan Kiberd does in his remarkable book "Inventing Ireland" the relationship between masulinities, colony and the fear of feminisation, and the relationship between irish nationalism, "mother ireland" and the virgin mary image.

Yeah, you know, I suggested this in an earlier post. I think I said something like, "men are scared of being emasculated". I was told I was crazy.

Judt

The first I am very opposed to since it is undemocratic to define a characteristic, be it physical such as race or gender, or political such as "one must agree with the government", that one must fit for one to be elected as a representative of the people.

But I've no issue at all with the political parties deciding that they are going to run a woman instead of a man for a seat in the Dial (or where ever).

I think you contradict yourself slightly... what's the difference between having a quota and an unspoken rule?

If by running a woman you mean "Having a fair competition for a place which a woman wins", then yes, I agree. If you mean "Choosing specifically that they want a woman to run in that particular seat" then same difference, right?

It's the latter that's happening.

Zombrex

Judt wrote:

I think you contradict yourself slightly... what's the difference between having a quota and an unspoken rule?

The difference is that the political parties can put forward anyone they want, and they normally do. If I don't like them I don't have to vote for them.

The criteria of the "best and the brightest" has never been used when choosing political candidates to stand in elections. Often the "best and the brightest" cannot get elected, or if elected make terrible political leaders. It would be nice to think that all our political leaders are the cream of the crop, but that would be pushing it to say the least.

Think of it this way. If you have a noble prize winning economist and a Dublin house wife both up for the same seat are you sure the noble prize winning economist will be elected? I wouldn't be. The Dublin house wife might have a unique perspective on what it is like to be a Dublin house wife and Dublin house wifes might be the ones electing her. In this case they want a house wife over a noble prize winning economist because they consider the Dublin house wife to be better. She is, in this situation, better suited for the job because she is what the electorate want.

As I said I seriously doubt that FG, FF, Labour etc are going to put forward women who they think cannot get elected.

Judt wrote:

If by running a woman you mean "Having a fair competition for a place which a woman wins", then yes, I agree.

When has there ever been a "fair competition for a place" run by any political party?

On what criteria do you deem a selection "fair?"

You seem to be under the impression that before this the party sat around and decided to pick the brightest, cleverest, most upstanding member of the party to run in an election, and now that is all going to be ruined because they have to put a woman up. Its never been like that.

In the political world "fair" most likely means "can you get elected", and no matter how much modern parties like to talk about equalising the sexes, I doubt they would be falling over themselves to lose seats.

There have been plenty of brighter, more intelligent, better educated, better experience candidates who were not chosen to run in particular seats because someone else is chosen on other grounds.

This might have been because of worry that they won't get elected, that they might not tow the party line, or maybe they have been shagging the pool boy. I'm not sure how you define this as "fair" or not "fair" within this, at the end of the day each potential candidate is supposed to be loyal to the party and is suppose to accept who the party chooses. Those who don't can get pissed off and run as independents.

The main point is that no one forces you to vote for the candidate. If you think they are not qualified, or you don't agree with their position, or you think they were just put up because they are good looking, or what ever reason, then don't vote for them.

If you think your particular political party should not put a certain candidate up for a seat then get on to them and express your opinion as part of the party.

As I said there is a difference (a big difference) with this happening at the party level than it happening at the legal level. No party or organisation should be forced by law to determine who must stand for them. But at the end of the day the party can do what ever it likes.

You don't have to vote for them.

johnnyskeleton

Judt wrote:

If by running a woman you mean "Having a fair competition for a place which a woman wins", then yes, I agree. If you mean "Choosing specifically that they want a woman to run in that particular seat" then same difference, right?

It's the latter that's happening.

I hate to keep bringing this up, but what I think is fatal to your argument is that you are going on nothing more concrete than pure speculation and you have given no evidence whatsoever to suggest that there are quotas, positive discrimination or women being chosen over more qualified men. The debate has been hypothetical so far (if there were quotas would they be acceptable?) but I can't see how you can assert that it is happening, when you have pointed to no evidence that it is (unless I missed something).

All your bbc article says is that the percentage of women in the Labour party and LDs is higher than the tories, and in the author's opinion more women should be in politics. The only mention of quotas is:

"Portuguese MEP Ana Gomes argues that EU member states have the power to end the under-representation of women in the European Parliament at a stroke, by legislating to introduce a minimum quota of female candidates."

One Portuguese MEP's desire to bring in quotas does not mean they are happening.

I don't believe there are actually quotas, and I put it to you that there is a very good chance that more women are getting into politics now because women are on the ascendant in many of the professions. I think that the proportion of women doctors, lawyers, accountants, architects etc is increasing (and possibly women are the majority in many of these) and it is logical that the proportion of women in politics should also increase.

However, women have not been as successful at entering the world of politics as they have been in other areas. It may be a matter of time, it may be a societal prejudice and it may be down to personal choices (family, too stressful, wouldn't get elected, etc). All these reasons have been canvassed and they could be put forward as reasons to suggest that quotas aren't really an issue.

Now, how can you suggest that there are quotas when there are much less women in politics than men? To flesh this out, it seems to me that you have started with the premise that only men should be in politics, and now that there are some women in politics, it must ipso facto be because there is some quota that discriminates in favour of women. It seems to me that you are finding it difficult to accept that many women in our society are among the "best and brightest" and that you are implying that women in politics are not there on their own merits. IMO, the "best and brightest" person in Irish politics since the founding of the free state has been Mary Robinson.

It has also been well argued by others here that women are under-represented because running more women is a political risk. If it wasn't you might easily find a situation where there is a 50/50 split between men and women without any kind of quota, discrimination or other insidious motive.

metrovelvet

DadaKopf wrote:

Yeah, you know, I suggested this in an earlier post. I think I said something like, "men are scared of being emasculated". I was told I was crazy.

I guess no one reads PI.

MontgomeryClift

johnnyskeleton wrote:

IMO, the "best and brightest" person in Irish politics since the founding of the free state has been Mary Robinson.

Didn't she make some comment recently about how she was delighted to hear about boys feeling like they belonged to an underclass, or had no chance in life, or something? If anybody can find that quote please post a link.