Quotas for female politicians sought

Macha

kangaroo wrote: »

Investigating is different from setting quotas on the issue. If you were really annoyed by the quotas perhaps you might notice this distinction - it makes me wonder whether you are really annoyed by the quotas suggestion, which might well become law.

This is just nonsense. You decide that I am not able to make a distinction that I have very clearly made and then use this false premise to question whether I'm really anti-quotas. It's just getting silly at this stage. Accept the fact that I don't agree with quotas and move. on.

kangaroo wrote: »

And I felt it was worth pointing out the danger gap that rarely seems to be mentioned.

Well done.

kangaroo wrote: »

It's also interesting that some people say "women earn 15% less for doing the same work" which clearly isn't what the statistics refers to across society (it refers to average pay but men and women tend to do different work on average i.e. there are some jobs that have a much greater proportion of men and some jobs that have a greater proportion of women). So people can be think there are injustices which might not really be true "injustices".

Who are these "some people" and "people". It's like you've decided there's a consensus on some issue out there that you disagree with. It's pretty commonly known that gender segregation in professions is a large part of the pay gap.

kangaroo wrote: »

But I'm not going to restrict what I mention because you're bored of hearing an argument; I'm bored of hearing that most of our politicians are male so this proves Oireachtas is favouring men in Irish society (or something to that effect). It's a simplistic analysis.

You don't seem able to even properly express the argument that you don't agree with!

kangaroo wrote: »

Most prostitutes are female and nearly all clients are male. All clients are criminalised, prostitutes are not (despite selling an illegal service). I think many feminists would claim prostitution as a gender issue of some sort or another - it's not just me.

Be that as it may, you still have yet to prove that the point of the law is to somehow "punish" men, rather than actually just trying to do something about prostitution - maybe there just isn't a misandrist conspiracy at work.

kangaroo wrote: »

Ok. Some or many feminists if you prefer.

Well that's uh, fractionally better.

kangaroo wrote: »

I don't see why I can't make observations about some feminists which I feel is relevant to the discussion at hand. And their apparent hypocrisy with regard to some issues (e.g. "ending the silence on domestic violence") and generally observations on drives for equality which are often one-sided. Just because you might not like the hypocrisy of some feminists to be highlighted doesn't mean it's not relevant in a thread like this.

Well firstly because your argument against discussing the obstacles that women face in the political arena seems to be descending into "men have a tough time too in some areas" and mentioning as many of those areas as well, while at the same time making vague accusations about "some or many feminists" and "these people".

kangaroo wrote: »

Well are you not then concerned that they might become law?

No, it's not even remotely on the cards.

kangaroo wrote: »

We already have quotas/targets with regard to membership of state boards. These were set up as one-sided i.e. there was no mention that there should be a minimum percentage of males.

That is just total bull. The quotas stipulate gender minimums for men and women.

kangaroo wrote: »

The Labour party had something along this lines in their last general election manifesto, IIRC.

Evidence?

kangaroo wrote: »

And they are very likely to be in power after the next election.

And?

kangaroo wrote: »

Most people in this thread disagree with them.

As much as I love boards, I'm not going to be arrogant enough to assume that the few people who post on here represent in any way some sort of national consensus.

kangaroo wrote: »

So I think it is reasonable to look at society overall and see how a situation might arise (that gender quotas for political parties might become law).

Or instead of running around like headless chickens putting all our energy into stopping something that probably isn't going to happen anyway (and suspiciously questioning those that we feel may not be as "really annoyed" about it as we are), we might actually look at some REAL problems that are already in existence?

kangaroo wrote: »

A conclusion I came to is that although there are lots of men in the Oireachtas, they are not necessarily acting for men per se.

Evidence please.

kangaroo wrote: »

And this also applies to other area e.g. what TDs are campaigning hard on fathers' rights and other matters which could be said to be described as mens' issues.

What exactly are "men's issues"? Geniune question. I consider fathers' rights and paternity leave to be major. What other major grievances to men have at the moment in Irish society?

kangaroo wrote: »

I believe there is not a balance and that gender issues are generally approached from a women's perspective.

I might be wrong on this, but I think it might have something to do with the fact that really it is only a lot of women who are bothered with issues of gender.

kangaroo wrote: »

Do you believe that for example, the Center for Gender and Women's Studies in Trinity which is all female is balanced? I don't.

Explain "balanced" and what obstacles are in the way of any men wanting to get involved in the centre?

kangaroo wrote: »

The Equality Authority, until a few years ago anyway, had a representative from the National Women's Council automatically on its board what I could make out (I E-mailed them in recent times but never got a response on the issue). They have taken away the pen pictures of the board from what I can see so it is less easy to see the background. From what I recall, until the latest board each board had at least one person who was or had been active in the National Women's Council.

And what is your problem with that?

kangaroo

taconnol wrote: »

kangaroo wrote:

But when prostitution is discussed, it seems rarely to be pointed out that lots of people do jobs they'd prefer not to do, for money.

A lot of your arguments seem to hinge on some claim about what "seems" to be said or not said, done or not done. In fact, this point has come up in every single discussion about prostitution that I've ever had.

I'm not talking about discussions on internet boards. I'm talking about non-internet discussions.

kangaroo

taconnol wrote:

kangaroo wrote:

There is a lot of talk in society of there not being equal pay - that on average, women earn less than men. But is there little mention of other factors regarding the workforce e.g. employees aren't exposed to "equal danger" for example - the rate of deaths and serious injuries in the workforce is much higher for men in Ireland. An example of picking one statistic to suit (level of pay) but ignoring others (level of danger and I have read other reasons why men on average earn more). And of course there are all sots of drives to bring pay closer together. Where are the drives to ensure there is less of an imbalance in the exposure of danger in the workplace?

---End Quote---
Well I would certainly support such a drive

So what are you going to do about it?

taconnol wrote:

where are are the men fighting for this? I don't see huge amounts of men fighting for women's rights - it's women at the forefront of the fight. Why aren't men fighting their own corner on this issue?

Well one factor might be that they're expected to earn money while there are still some kept women in Ireland and there was more in the past.
How many men are there in a position to do a full-time men's studies course (if one existed) - would their partners be happy with them doing this?

Men also have not been educated on the issues. General courses in college for example don't point out masculist councerns e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism

One also tends to get abrasive responses when one dares to question feminist dogma. It could be said to be a bit like a totalitarian state. Freedom of speech is not encouraged.

taconnol wrote:

And on the question of factors like danger and health, poverty and accordingly low pay, is a very serious factor in health with poor people suffering lower life expectancies that wealthier people.

Men live shorter lives than women so I'm not sure how relevant this is.

What I do think is relevant is what happens in the workplace - as I said, much more men than women die or are serioulsy injured in the workplace. But this does not seem to be mentioned much, including by gender researchers or groups such as the Equality Authority. And there does not seem to be nearly as much effort put into studying this phenomenon as there is the gender pay gap. And there's also much more effort put into rectifying the latter.

kangaroo

taconnol wrote: »

kangaroo wrote:

We already have quotas/targets with regard to membership of state boards. These were set up as one-sided i.e. there was no mention that there should be a minimum percentage of males.

That is just total bull. The quotas stipulate gender minimums for men and women.

Ok, it looks like I was wrong on that. I just checked and it appears that it is the case (i.e. targets both ways). I did a quick search and couldn't find the exact quote in the Oireachtas.

I don't think I was the only person who picked this up incorrectly. This was first mentioned in 1991 and regularly in the early to mid 1990s when there was virtually no WWW so one depended on sources like newspapers. I remember disagreeing with two people from the Labour party saying why wasn't it set both ways and they defended the idea that there was only a need for a one sided quota (so they also thought there was a one-way quota). If one searches, one will see that it is often referred to as the government having a target of 40% women for boards.

taconnol wrote: »

kangaroo wrote:

Well are you not then concerned that they might become law?

No, it's not even remotely on the cards.

taconnol wrote: »

kangaroo wrote:

The Labour party had something along this lines in their last general election manifesto, IIRC.

Evidence?

http://www.joanburton.ie/bblog/pbpdf/629_Summary.manifesto.doc

Gender Equality

• We will tie public funding for political parties to the level of participation by women as public representatives those parties achieve. Demanding targets for all parties – including our own – will be set out in legislation.

From the Full Labour manifesto 2007:
(They had this bit in bold in the pdf)

http://www.labour.ie/manifesto/12.html

We will tie public funding for political parties
to the level of participation by women as
public representatives those parties achieve.
Demanding targets for all parties – including
our own – will be set out in legislation.
Payments to a qualified party under the
Electoral Act will be reduced unless at least 33
per cent of its candidates are women. That 33
per cent target figure will apply to elections
taking place from 2012, and will be increased
to 40 per cent from 2019. Provision will be
made for circumstances where a high
proportion of candidates elected are women.

Macha

kangaroo wrote: »

I'm not talking about discussions on internet boards. I'm talking about non-internet discussions.

So am I

kangaroo wrote: »

So what are you going to do about it?

I said I would support it. Given that it's something you feel passionately, I think the question really should be what are you going to do about it?

kangaroo wrote: »

Well one factor might be that they're expected to earn money while there are still some kept women in Ireland and there was more in the past.
How many men are there in a position to do a full-time men's studies course (if one existed) - would their partners be happy with them doing this?

As far as I'm aware, most people doing these courses at undergraduate level do not have partners to approve or disapprove.

kangaroo wrote: »

Men also have not been educated on the issues. General courses in college for example don't point out masculist councerns e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism

Can you provide evidence that they don't? I have never done one of these issues so I don't know personally.

kangaroo wrote: »

One also tends to get abrasive responses when one dares to question feminist dogma. It could be said to be a bit like a totalitarian state. Freedom of speech is not encouraged.

Who is "one"? Are you talking about "you"? Another unfounded claim about what some mysterious people "tend" to do. And I'm not sure how you can equate someone not liking what you say to being in a totalitarian state. (side note: I take a very dim view of these hyperbolic comparisons partly because they are rarely accurate and partly because they only serve to cheapen and belittle the point of comparison). Also, if I do believe in something like equality, I would take exception to someone referring to that as "dogma" (Also, I note you again rolling it all into one single "dogma".)

kangaroo wrote: »

Men live shorter lives than women so I'm not sure how relevant this is.

You brought up life expectancy. It seems to be relevant when it suits you but not so much when it doesn't suit you.

kangaroo wrote: »

What I do think is relevant is what happens in the workplace - as I said, much more men than women die or are seriously injured in the workplace.

And again, you bring it back to what you think is relevant and ignore mine!

kangaroo wrote: »

I don't think I was the only person who picked this up incorrectly.

That's why it's important to do your own research and not base your argument on what people say or don't say.

kangaroo wrote: »

http://www.joanburton.ie/bblog/pbpdf/629_Summary.manifesto.doc

From the Full Labour manifesto 2007:
(They had this bit in bold in the pdf)

http://www.labour.ie/manifesto/12.html

OK thanks for that. I still don't think it's going to happen.

kangaroo

taconnol wrote:

kangaroo wrote:

It's also interesting that some people say "women earn 15% less for doing the same work" which clearly isn't what the statistics refers to across society (it refers to average pay but men and women tend to do different work on average i.e. there are some jobs that have a much greater proportion of men and some jobs that have a greater proportion of women). So people can be think there are injustices which might not really be true "injustices".

It's pretty commonly known that gender segregation in professions is a large part of the pay gap.

It might be pretty commonly known but it is not always mentioned.

--

taconnol wrote:

kangaroo wrote:

The Labour party had something along this lines in their last general election manifesto, IIRC.

Evidence?"

taconnol wrote:

kangaroo wrote:

And they are very likely to be in power after the next election.

And?.

And it's thus very likely they'll be pushing for it again.

But you have not really shown to me that you are that concerned about it. It appears that given the discrimination will be in favour of women you don't seem to be that bothered by it that you would actually want to do anything.
But what should one expect of somebody with feminist sympathies! It appears to me feminists often belittle men's concerns or say they are not of much importance.

Again for anybody who missed it.
From the Full Labour manifesto 2007:
(They had this bit in bold in the pdf)

http://www.labour.ie/manifesto/12.html

We will tie public funding for political parties
to the level of participation by women as
public representatives those parties achieve.
Demanding targets for all parties – including
our own – will be set out in legislation.
Payments to a qualified party under the
Electoral Act will be reduced unless at least 33
per cent of its candidates are women. That 33
per cent target figure will apply to elections
taking place from 2012, and will be increased
to 40 per cent from 2019. Provision will be
made for circumstances where a high
proportion of candidates elected are women.

taconnol wrote:

kangaroo wrote:

And this also applies to other area e.g. what TDs are campaigning hard on fathers' rights and other matters which could be said to be described as mens' issues.

What exactly are "men's issues"? Geniune question. I consider fathers' rights and paternity leave to be major. What other major grievances to men have at the moment in Irish society?

Here is a summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism . As I have given the link at five times before in the thread (four new posts and then I re-iterated a point), I'll copy in what it says. I'm not saying I agree with all of them just as not all feminists agree. Hopefully you'll make a stab at reading at least half of it this time.

Masculist concerns

Masculists cite one-sided legislation, selective enforcement, and neglected civil rights as examples of discrimination against men and boys. Examples of questions raised by masculists may include:

Violence
Masculist concerns focus on societal acceptance of violence harming men paired with the stigma against violence harming women, as well as males being taught or expected to take on violent roles.

- Men forced to risk their lives in male-only conscripted military service.

- Violence against men minimalized or taken less seriously than violence against women [4] [5]

- Women are more violent than men in some research studies asking both men and women.[3][4]

- Depiction of violence against men as humorous, in the media[5] and elsewhere (see Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them!), when women are also violent.

- Assumption of female innocence or sympathy for women, which may result in problems such as disproportionate penalties for men and women for similar crimes,[5] lack of sympathy for male victims in domestic violence cases, and dismissal of female-on-male rape cases.

- Societal failure to address prison rape, including issues such as prevention (e.g., reducing prison crowding that requires sharing of cells), impunity for prison rapists, and even correctional staff punishing prisoners by confining them with known rapists.[6] Attention has been drawn to portrayals of male rape by women, or implied rape, as humorous.

- Circumcision (characterized as harmless tradition by some, and as male genital mutilation by others) being advocated while female genital mutilation is prohibited, although both practices are purported to reduce sexual pleasure and expose the patient to possible health problems.[7]


Parenting

- Equality in child custody, such as shared parenting

- Pregnancies carried to term despite agreements ahead of time that they would not be, subjecting men to unwanted parental responsibilities and/or child support expectations (see Dubay v. Wells)

- The opposite of the above, where a man who feels he wants to have a child has no say in whether his girlfriend/wife aborts their child (see paternal rights and abortion)

- Equality in adoption rights allowing either unmarried males or females to adopt.

Discrimination

- Legislation that addresses women's needs without considering the corresponding need in men (e.g., Women, Infants, and Children Act; Violence Against Women Act)

- Biases in the justice system against men, such as higher incarceration rates and longer sentences for men (compared to women) for the same crimes

- Statutory rape laws enforced more vehemently in instances where the victim is female and/or the perpetrator is male.[8]

- Rape shield laws, which may prevent some men from adequately challenging their accuser
Cathy Young, who does not consider herself a "masculinist," argues that in rape cases, "the dogma that "women never lie" means that there is, for all intents and purposes, no presumption of innocence for the defendant"[6]

- Women are allowed to marry at younger ages than men in some U.S. states. [7]

- Men pay higher premiums for auto[9], life and disability insurance, though discrimination according to race or other criteria is prohibited.

- In some countries, men have to pay more income tax than their female counterparts. E.g. in India the income tax exemption limit for men is Rs 1,50,000 per annum while that for women is Rs 1,80,000 per annum.[10]

- Men not being believed after having been raped by their wife, girlfriend or fiancee; lesser or no penalty for women that rape men


Social concerns

- Increasing suicide rate among young men, four times higher than among young women [11]; (In the United States, 73% of all suicide deaths are white males;[12] In the United States, more men than women report a history of attempted suicide, with a gender ratio of 3:1)[12]

- It's usually seen as socially acceptable for a female to try out or follow masculine social norms, whereas if a male does the same for feminine social norms they often attract unwanted attention and are victims of ridicule and insult, with derogatory terms like "pussy" and "******" being used.

- Lack of advocacy for men's rights; little domestic abuse support for men.[vague]

- Bias in health concerns; for example, more advertisements and awareness for breast cancer than prostate cancer, though both cancers kill approximately the same number of people each year.[citation needed]

- Incarceration for not paying child support, particularly for unwanted children, in contrast to women's right to abort (see Male abortion)

- Special government agencies for women's affairs with no corresponding agencies for men's affairs

- Lack of legal ramifications or enforcement for paternity fraud

Education

This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2007)

- Lack of educational aid for boys and men, given that their performance/enrollment at most levels lags behind that of girls and women; some[which?] states declaring (de jure or de facto) all-male schools illegal and all-female schools legal.

- There is concern that some university women's studies departments are more concerned with teaching feminist ideology than equality of gender. The content and emphasis of these courses vary, and some even discuss "masculinities"; but masculists fear that many such courses contribute to animosity towards men.[who?]

- Some universities also carry men's studies courses. Some[who?] feminists argue that these are redundant, stating that academia throughout history was predominantly focused on men; however, supporters of these courses note that most subjects throughout history have not dealt with gender directly.

Employment

- Harder physical entrance criteria for men in many occupations, such as the army, police and fire service. Requiring men to be physically stronger than women in these occupations leaves men responsible for a greater share of the physical work, for no more pay.[13]

- Legal inequality and protections of paternal vs. maternal leave[citation needed]

taconnol wrote:

kangaroo wrote:

Men live shorter lives than women so I'm not sure how relevant this is.

You brought up life expectancy. It seems to be relevant when it suits you but not so much when it doesn't suit you.

. I talked about workplace accidents. Somebody else brought up life expectancy - I don't believe I did before this point (replying to your point)

gizmo555

taconnol wrote: »

kangaroo wrote: »

http://www.joanburton.ie/bblog/pbpdf/629_Summary.manifesto.doc

From the Full Labour manifesto 2007:
(They had this bit in bold in the pdf)

We will tie public funding for political parties
to the level of participation by women as
public representatives those parties achieve.
Demanding targets for all parties – including
our own – will be set out in legislation.
Payments to a qualified party under the
Electoral Act will be reduced unless at least 33
per cent of its candidates are women. That 33
per cent target figure will apply to elections
taking place from 2012, and will be increased
to 40 per cent from 2019. Provision will be
made for circumstances where a high
proportion of candidates elected are women.

http://www.labour.ie/manifesto/12.html

OK thanks for that. I still don't think it's going to happen.

I'd be very fearful it would happen - this is exactly the kind of gimmicky b.s. which doesn't actually involve spending any money that may be agreed in a coalition so the smaller party can point to it as an example of their policies being implemented.

maggy_thatcher

kangaroo wrote: »

From the Full Labour manifesto 2007:
(They had this bit in bold in the pdf)

We will tie public funding for political parties
to the level of participation by women as
public representatives those parties achieve.
Demanding targets for all parties – including
our own – will be set out in legislation.
Payments to a qualified party under the
Electoral Act will be reduced unless at least 33
per cent of its candidates are women. That 33
per cent target figure will apply to elections
taking place from 2012, and will be increased
to 40 per cent from 2019. Provision will be
made for circumstances where a high
proportion of candidates elected are women.

I personally don't see why political parties should get any public funding at all. How much money is wasted in this way?

SparkyLarks

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

I personally don't see why political parties should get any public funding at all. How much money is wasted in this way?

Then political parties will need to turn to the 'rich' or in fact only people with enough money to support themselves will be able to partake in politics.

Personally I think it is wrong to have quota's it is descrimination as a situatin where the best person will not get the job and the person who gets the job will get it the job based on their Gender.

DO we need to make politics more accessable, possibly, though it will always be a job which demands massive time sacrifices. If somone doe want to be a TD and they have young children they do need the support of someone who can help mind the kids.

I am suprised that it would be legal to enforce quota's.

Though people often confuse equality and fairness. Men and women are not the same and to treat them equally might not be fair. i.e. to provide only urinals for both men and women.

Similarly there are services that need to be women only, and there are genuine issues tat need to be addressed .

However society is very quiet on Misandry.
From the dipiction of men as idiots in advertising to headlines reading boys smarter that girls.

Or hearing that men need to get in touch with their feminine side. Imagine saying that a woman need to act more like a man.

Though is it not suprising that some men feel under attack when they hear of thing like this extract from SCUM Manifesto by Valerie Solanas, a radical feminist:

As for the issue of whether or not to continue to reproduce males, it doesn't follow that because the male, like disease, has always existed among us that he should continue to exist.
When genetic control is possible — and soon it will be — it goes without saying that we should produce only whole, complete beings, not physical defects of deficiencies, including emotional deficiencies, such as maleness. Just as the deliberate production of blind people would be highly immoral, so would be the deliberate production of emotional cripples.

T runner

kangaroo wrote: »

I suppose one definition might be how much of their time and energy is spent trying to push feminist ideas. Quite a lot of people agree with some feminist points so could be described as feminists. But not many people actively push agendas like positive discrimination (which involves discriminating against another group).

The oireachtas committee created to investigate this issue was chaired by a FF TD. Do you think he is a "hardline feminist"?

The discrimination will not be in favour of the women. There will be a quota of 33% also.

T runner

kangaroo wrote: »

It appears to have been claimed that because Sweden is supposedly so idyllic, that this proves gender quotas are a good thing.

But is Sweden so perfect?

I recall reading about the following recently: in Sweden, the law regarding prostitution could be summarised as:
"the purchaser of sex is the villain and the prostitute is the victim. Under Swedish law there are no offences of loitering or soliciting, but paying for sex on or off the street is a crime."
This law was introduced after there were gender quotas (i.e. it's not an ancient law)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=62847929&highlight=sweden+prostitution#post62847929


Of course, I'm sure a hardline feminist like Ivana Bacik would think this is a good law.

.

Why exactly do you think that this is a bad law? Has the law being a failure or a striking success? Attacking the demand for a product has also a notable effect on recucing the supply, does it not?
Are you aware of the amount of sex trafficking that occurs in Sweden? The amount of young girls kidnapped and drugged by men and brought there for the sex industry. Are you aware that the majority of prostitutes there are drug/drink addicted? No? And who pays for all this? Where does the demand come from? It comes from the everyday punter. It comes from the middle/upper class scumbag who uses prostitutes, and other parts of the sex industry. As for paedophilia, If you are a punter you are involved in the exploitation and ensalvement of young women and should be convicted accordingly. Do you have a problem with this?

As long as these arseholes think they can buy prostitutes with impunity the sex trade will flourish.

BTW Pimps, criminal gangs, sex traffickers make the money from this industry not prostitutes who are generally paid a wage to feed their habit or are slaves.

Its so unfair the men being targetted for the sex industry when it is clearly the fault of those ****ing whores!

kangaroo

T runner wrote: »

Why exactly do you think that this is a bad law? Has the law being a failure or a striking success?

Was Belle de Jour forced into it? Or did she do it as an adult decision to make money?

T runner

DeVore wrote: »

I dont argue that they present the majority of the correction needed but I see NOTHING addressing things like suicide rates, longetivity imbalances (imagine if women died 7 years earlier then men... there'd be investigations and much hand wringing), UTTER imbalance in the courts on custody issues etc etc.
When I start seeing these things addressed ALONG with the issues raised by Mr Bacik then I will treat this as something other then a state-sponsored lobbyist putting forward an agenda to further their particular bugbear.

Equality for all.

DeV.

Why should an oireachtas committee set up to look at gender imbalances in politics also look at suicides, longevity imbalances etc.?
Do you propose this as a once off or are you proposing that it is best to tackle all the ills in society at oireachtas committe level?

kangaroo

T runner wrote: »

kangaroo wrote:

I suppose one definition might be how much of their time and energy is spent trying to push feminist ideas. Quite a lot of people agree with some feminist points so could be described as feminists. But not many people actively push agendas like positive discrimination (which involves discriminating against another group)."

The oireachtas committee created to investigate this issue was chaired by a FF TD. Do you think he is a "hardline feminist"?

I don't know the individual in question. My guess is he probably isn't.

Has he been exposed to many masculist critiques of society or read the list of masculist concerns about society - I doubt it.

As was pointed out by another poster,
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63010729&postcount=193 Senator Bacik was the rapporteur. It seems to be more her report than anybody else's.

It is risky for people in society to challenge feminists. They will often be called names and be the butt of ad hominem attacks. In a society where most people won't do it in the workplace, I can understand why a politician might not be as rigorous with regard to feminist works as they might be. Especially when they might not have read other ways that society can be analysed.

T runner wrote: »

The discrimination will not be in favour of the women. There will be a quota of 33% also.

You're still going to have individuals being disadvantaged explicitly because of their gender. I would have thought people so infuriated by gender discrimination would not want gender discrimination to be written into our laws.

T runner

kangaroo wrote: »

Was Belle de Jour forced into it? Or did she do it as an adult decision to make money?

That would be very much the exception and not the rule. The rule is: Young vulnerable girls, exploited drug addicts, and slaves.

Do you think that paying money for sex when your money will be used to exploit or enslave, young women and addicts is a crime?

Very Interested in your answer.

kangaroo

dodgyme wrote: »

little letter from the times:

Madam, – Senator Ivana Bacik believes gender quotas should be introduced for candidates standing for election (November 11th). Why should such quotas be restricted to areas where men are over-represented? For example, the Centre for Gender and Women’s Studies in Trinity College Dublin has an all-female staff and an all-female advisory board, on which Senator Bacik herself sits. – Yours, etc,

Prof. Eileen Drew has a letter in the Irish Times today, calling for gender quotas and the problems of gender imbalances.

She is also on the all-female advisory committee of the Centre for Gender and Women’s Studies in Trinity College Dublin! (ref: http://www.tcd.ie/cgws/staff/advisorycommitte.php )

T runner

kangaroo wrote: »

I don't know the individual in question. My guess is he probably isn't.

So your attack on the Oireachtas committess report as unreasonably pro women becuse a "hardline feminist" like Ivans Bacik is behind it is completely without foundation.

Firstly, because attacling the messenger is a weak and underhand method of argument

Secondly, because you dont even know who the messenger is in the first place,

Has he been exposed to many masculist critiques of society or read the list of masculist concerns about society - I doubt it.

His role as a member in this Oireachtas commmittee is to examine gender related equality in politics: nothing more. The committe has done that and given their recommendations.

As was pointed out by another poster,
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63010729&postcount=193 Senator Bacik was the rapporteur. It seems to be more her report than anybody else's.

So you are saying the rapporteur in an Oireachtas committee has complete control of what is preduced in the report? The chairman is powerless? Can you prove this?

It is risky for people in society to challenge feminists. They will often be called names.

You are deliberately trying to associate this report with feminism. This is an Oireachtas report end of story. If you can prove that Ivana Bacik hijacked this report and somehow muzzled the chairman then do it?

Otherwise drop it. There is no feminist conspiracy here.

You're still going to have individuals being disadvantaged explicitly because of their gender.

No you wont. If the political parties and politicians remove the structural barriers in place that make it more difficult for people (especially women) to get elected then the amount of females (or males) will never fall below the 33%. If a party does not remove the barriers they will

a) be heavily fined or
b) forced to put up weak candidates based on gender which the public wont vote for.

It is in the parties interest to remove gender barriers (to men or women)within a quota system therefore it is likely to suceed.

T runner

T runner wrote: »

That would be very much the exception and not the rule. The rule is: Young vulnerable girls, exploited drug addicts, and slaves.

Do you think that paying money for sex when your money will be used to exploit or enslave, young women and addicts is a crime?

Very Interested in your answer.

Still waiting....

gizmo555

T runner wrote: »

The oireachtas committee created to investigate this issue was chaired by a FF TD. Do you think he is a "hardline feminist"?

The discrimination will not be in favour of the women. There will be a quota of 33% also.

kangaroo wrote: »

As was pointed out by another poster,
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63010729&postcount=193 Senator Bacik was the rapporteur. It seems to be more her report than anybody else's.

The sub-committee on women's participation in politics for which Senator Bacik produced the report was itself established at the behest of Bacik herself.

The sub-committee and its report are 100% the initiative of Ivana Bacik.

Chairman: I seek the committee’s agreement. Senator Bacik has made a good suggestion, namely, that the committee should examine women’s rate of participation in politics. I propose that we form a sub-committee to consider the matter. I would chair it and it would comprise four Deputies and two Senators. The convenors can determine the membership. I also propose that Senator Bacik be made rapporteur to the sub-committee and that it should report to the main committee in six months’ time.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=JUJ20090430.xml&Node=H2#H2

maggy_thatcher

T runner wrote: »

No you wont. If the political parties and politicians remove the structural barriers in place that make it more difficult for people (especially women) to get elected then the amount of females (or males) will never fall below the 33%. If a party does not remove the barriers they will

a) be heavily fined or
b) forced to put up weak candidates based on gender which the public wont vote for.

It is in the parties interest to remove gender barriers (to men or women)within a quota system therefore it is likely to suceed.

The plan wasn't to fine parties, it was to reduce their public funding. Also, there is a third workaround (presumably by changing the Electoral Act). There is no restriction on the number of candidates on any ballot paper -- just flood one district (one that they know they won't win anyway) with all these "weak" candidates...and then they hit 33% -- problem solved.

Assuming they do introduce this system, how do you think the parties will adjust themselves to make life easier for women to get in? Also, if the selection step is made simpler for them -- do you believe they will cope inside Leinster House itself?

T runner

kangaroo wrote: »

Prof. Eileen Drew has a letter in the Irish Times today, calling for gender quotas and the problems of gender imbalances.

She is also on the all-female advisory committee of the Centre for Gender and Women’s Studies in Trinity College Dublin! (ref: http://www.tcd.ie/cgws/staff/advisorycommitte.php )

(Notice above again the tactic of attcling the messanger when the message is strong.)

Interesting excerpt from her letter:

The rapid diffusion of gender quota policies has been supported by the United Nations (since the adoption of Resolution 56 (1) in 1946) and, over the last decade, by the Council of Europe and European Union, among many other international organisations.

Heres the letter in full:

Madam, – Barry Walsh (November 7th) referred to the introduction of gender quotas in politics as an imposition that would be a “gross distortion of the electoral process”. Surely Mr Walsh has missed the point? Any such a distortion can only be attributed to the desire to hold onto power, at all costs, by vested male interests. This laissez-faire attitude shores up an inequitable political system in Ireland.

Now is surely the time to redress the gender imbalance in order to allow the majority of the population to have a proportionate say in how Ireland is run.

International research demonstrates that gender equity in politics is the hallmark of mature and stable democracies. However, evidence also shows that countries, like Sweden, did not attain gender parity in political life by “accident”. On the contrary, more than 100 countries have taken positive initiatives to ensure women’s greater presence in politics through mechanisms such as reserved seats, party quotas and legislative quotas. The rapid diffusion of gender quota policies has been supported by the United Nations (since the adoption of Resolution 56 (1) in 1946) and, over the last decade, by the Council of Europe and European Union, among many other international organisations.

The Joint Oireachtas Justice Committee’s report on women’s participation in politics, which has cross-party support, recommends that legislation be introduced to require political parties to ensure that no more than two-thirds of their candidates be male. This mechanism would be more effective than other quota measures since it would bind all political parties and be enforceable by the State and through the Irish courts.

The message is a clear one – worldwide quota policies work effectively to improve women’s access to political office. Without such action Ireland can expect to fall closer to the “bottom of the international league tables”. – Yours, etc,

Prof EILEEN DREW,

Rathfeigh,

Tara,

Co Meath.

maggy_thatcher

T runner wrote: »

Still waiting....

If you can prove that the person paying for sex knew or had reason to know (e.g. he/she was obviously underage) that the person being paid was not doing it of her own consent; then yes I would imagine that should be a crime. However, if the purchase of something is illegal, then it should only be fair that the sale of it is also illegal (with the same penalties); which I believe was the original point made.

There should be no difference between that and people who buy goods from "child-labour" manufacturers (e.g. Penneys, Reebok, etc.)

Anyway - we're drifting *way* off topic here.

maggy_thatcher

T runner wrote: »

(Notice above again the tactic of attcling the messanger when the message is strong.)

Interesting excerpt from her letter:

The rapid diffusion of gender quota policies has been supported by the United Nations (since the adoption of Resolution 56 (1) in 1946) and, over the last decade, by the Council of Europe and European Union, among many other international organisations.

Heres the letter in full:

Again with Sweden as an example. Does anybody have an example of a state where it was introduced against the will of the people it affects most, and was still this (allegedly) roaring success?

T runner

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Also, there is a third workaround (presumably by changing the Electoral Act). There is no restriction on the number of candidates on any ballot paper -- just flood one district (one that they know they won't win anyway) with all these "weak" candidates...and then they hit 33% -- problem solved.

I assume an effort as dishonesty as blatant as this would be covered by any change in policy. Its not inventing the wheel it has been done in 81 other countries.

Assuming they do introduce this system, how do you think the parties will adjust themselves to make life easier for women to get in?

Ive covered this all before. Chanding the selectiuon convention would be one obvious immediate barrier making it easier for a greater range of people (not just women) to get selected. Political parties would be forced to look at the 6Cs.

Also, if the selection step is made simpler for them -- do you believe they will cope inside Leinster House itself?

They will do as well as the men, of course. The current selection convention only means that many talented women (and men) dont get selected at this stage or dont go for selection. The convention doesnt really dicide the best person for teh job. Because of its aggresive "bear pit" nature it generally decides the best man for the job.

maggy_thatcher

T runner wrote: »

I assume an effort as dishonesty as blatant as this would be covered by any change in policy. Its not inventing the wheel it has been done in 81 other countries.

You know what they say about assumptions

T runner wrote: »

Ive covered this all before. Chanding the selectiuon convention would be one obvious immediate barrier making it easier for a greater range of people (not just women) to get selected. Political parties would be forced to look at the 6Cs.

I'm assuming you mean this one? I went through each of those suggestions here, but you never replied...

T runner wrote: »

They will do as well as the men, of course. The current selection convention only means that many talented women (and men) dont get selected at this stage or dont go for selection. The convention doesnt really dicide the best person for teh job. Because of its aggresive "bear pit" nature it generally decides the best man for the job.

My point is that the Dáil itself can be pretty aggressive -- I don't want politicians who cower behind the curtain (or worse, don't show up at all) because they never got into a proper fight during the selection process.

DibDab

all part of a much bigger agenda.

T runner

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

I'm assuming you mean this one? I went through each of those suggestions here, but you never replied...

You stated that I said that the quota system would mean less talented candidates. I actually said that if certain political parties didnt remove barriers they may put up candidates solely based on gender.

This is not even nearly the same thing and I did tell you in the post just before that I wouldnt reply to posts where I felt my arguments were being strawmanned: so I didnt respond.

Ive also asked you previously to explain how it would be possible to deal with gender based barriers like the selection convention and the 6 Cs without a quota system.

Ive also asked you if Turkeys representation of 4.4% was also because women did not like politics in that a country?
This is the reason you gave for the low percentage of female TDs here which has never exceeeded 14%

My point is that the Dáil itself can be pretty aggressive -- I don't want politicians who cower behind the curtain (or worse, don't show up at all) because they never got into a proper fight during the selection process.

That is unlikely. The Ceann Comhairle has the power to stop shouting matches and ensure the points are debated properly and that all pliticians are heard not just the most aggressive one.

That said if the selection committee was amended then Im sure in time you would see less aggression and silly bullishness in the dail and more reasoned debate as political skill and talent becomes more important to you getting selected than aggression.

maggy_thatcher

T runner wrote: »

You stated that I said that the quota system would mean less talented candidates. I actually said that if certain political parties didnt remove barriers they may put up candidates solely based on gender.

This is not even nearly the same thing and I did tell you in the post just before that I wouldnt reply to posts where I felt my arguments were being strawmanned: so I didnt respond.

I wasn't referring to that part of the post -- I was referring to your list of "ways to fix it" -- each one of those (in my view) didn't work, which is what I pointed out. To date, nobody seems to have come up with a working long-term solution.

T runner wrote: »

Ive also asked you previously to explain how it would be possible to deal with gender based barriers like the selection convention and the 6 Cs without a quota system.

There are a few options:

1. Eliminate political parties altogether -- make everybody equal.
2. Use a Jury-Duty style system to force everybody to have their turn as a candidate. Many people say that you shouldn't let anybody who wants to be in politics anywhere near the place -- this would get around that.
3. Remove maternity leave (replace it with parental leave), so "stay-at-home husbands" can keep the family running.
4. Repeal Article 41, section 2 from the constitution (or replace it with a gender-neutral version).
5. Close down Leinster House; and replace it with telecommuting -- as it's primarily debating anyway, why not just have it done over a big webcast? This way, it means the culchies don't have to keep coming into Dublin and are more accessible to their constituents all the time. If they can work from home, the work-life balance might be helped a little?

Some of these are probably not too appealing to some people; but then neither is introducing a quota system.

T runner wrote: »

That is unlikely. The Ceann Comhairle has the power to stop shouting matches and ensure the points are debated properly and that all pliticians are heard not just the most aggressive one.

That said if the selection committee was amended then Im sure in time you would see less aggression and silly bullishness in the dail and more reasoned debate as political skill and talent becomes more important to you getting selected than aggression.

I mean how aggressive it is now...unless you plan this to happen overnight, there will be a transition period -- this is where I'd be particularly concerned about how the country is run.

maggy_thatcher

T runner wrote: »

Ive also asked you if Turkeys representation of 4.4% was also because women did not like politics in that a country?

Not knowing any Turkish people, I can't comment on this.

T runner

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

I wasn't referring to that part of the post -- I was referring to your list of "ways to fix it" -- each one of those (in my view) didn't work, which is what I pointed out. To date, nobody seems to have come up with a working long-term solution.

The quota system is a short term solution which will bring us to the long term solution of no gender barriers in politics.



There are a few options:

[*]Eliminate political parties altogether -- make everybody equal.

That wont happen.

[*]Use a Jury-Duty style system to force everybody to have their turn as a candidate. Many people say that you shouldn't let anybody who wants to be in politics anywhere near the place -- this would get around that.

You need people with political skill in politics. Reducing the barriers for potential politicians means that more people with political skilll will be candidates.

[*]Remove maternity leave (replace it with parental leave), so "stay-at-home husbands" can keep the family running.

Why would you remove maternity leave? Are you trying to be funny?
Give fathers the option to take paternity leave equal to maternity leave.
This would remove the barrier of women not going into politics because they have to take a long time off. THis would make it easier for mothers to advance their careers in all walsk of life and be more family friendly.

[*]Repeal Article 41, section 2 from the constitution (or replace it with a gender-neutral version).

Agreed

[*]Close down Leinster House; and replace it with telecommuting -- as it's primarily debating anyway, why not just have it done over a big webcast? This way, it means the culchies don't have to keep coming into Dublin and are more accessible to their constituents all the time. If they can work from home, the work-life balance might be helped a little?

The time spent in Leinster house can be reduced a little although important issues would need to be debated person to person still.

I mean how aggressive it is now...unless you plan this to happen overnight, there will be a transition period -- this is where I'd be particularly concerned about how the country is run

It is only 33% of the candidates. Some countries have 40% seats reserved.
There would be a period of time before any change in policy is implemented. Plenty of time for competent parties to plan how to remove any barriers to women being candidates in their party,

Do you think our parliament would make theses changes of their own accord?
Thes changes are more likely to be made with more females as TDs. I would see these changes as necessary but coming after the quota system. No quota system, no changes.

T runner

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Not knowing any Turkish people, I can't comment on this.

But you said that Swedish women are very different to Irish women. Do you know many Swedish women? If you dont how can you make this comment?

Also you ststed that Irish women dont like politics? How can you know this?

I think the 4.4% Clearly indicates structural discrimination in Turkey as does our <14% ststistic.

Do you think that the

kangaroo

T runner wrote: »

kangaroo wrote:

Prof. Eileen Drew has a letter in the Irish Times today, calling for gender quotas and the problems of gender imbalances.

She is also on the all-female advisory committee of the Centre for Gender and Women’s Studies in Trinity College Dublin! (ref: http://www.tcd.ie/cgws/staff/advisorycommitte.php )

(Notice above again the tactic of attcling the messanger when the message is strong.)

I think it is perfectly reasonable to point out the apparent hypocrisy of the situation.

And it gets to the part of the core issue: it does not appear that Senator Bacik and Prof. Drew have a problem with a lack of gender balance in circumstances when there is little or no male input.

(I might write more later - I have work to do - also spent a lot of time on this thread over the weekend so am behind).

maggy_thatcher

T runner wrote: »

The quota system is a short term solution which will bring us to the long term solution of no gender barriers in politics.

You keep saying that -- but no country that has introduced a quota system has ever removed it -- what's to say they'd do it properly here?

T runner wrote: »

Why would you remove maternity leave? Are you trying to be funny?
Give fathers the option to take paternity leave equal to maternity leave.
This would remove the barrier of women not going into politics because they have to take a long time off. THis would make it easier for mothers to advance their careers in all walsk of life and be more family friendly.

The country could probably not afford to have every family have *both* the mother and the father take the full length of maternity leave off -- that's why I said "replace it with parental leave" -- allow the couple to choose which one of the family goes to work, and which one stays at home. Right now, it's hard-coded to be the woman stays at home.

T runner wrote: »

Agreed

Wohoo - we agree on something

T runner wrote: »

The time spent in Leinster house can be reduced a little although important issues would need to be debated person to person still.

How about they have debates on-line 4 days a week, with 1 day a week in Leinster House, *but* expand the working time to be more year-around? Does that sound fair to you?

T runner wrote: »

It is only 33% of the candidates. Some countries have 40% seats reserved.

Do they have 40% reserved for men as well? Either way, they obviously don't have a true democratic system.

kangaroo

T runner wrote: »

Firstly, because attacling the messenger is a weak and underhand method of argument

Senator Bacik has herself characterised herself as a feminist e.g. when standing for the European elections, I recall she described herself as a socialist and feminist (or was it socialist and feminist campaigner - something along those lines).

maggy_thatcher

T runner wrote: »

But you said that Swedish women are very different to Irish women. Do you know many Swedish women? If you dont how can you make this comment?

Also you ststed that Irish women dont like politics? How can you know this?

I have met a few Swedish women, but not many. To be honest, politics never came up in discussion. As for Irish women...I know many of those, and, in general, most of them find politics a particularly boring subject. I know many Irish men also, and of those, several are actively involved in politics. Also, I never said that Irish women don't like politics, I said maybe Irish women don't like politics. Of the women that I have talked to, most of them believe that introducing a quota system is plainly ridiculous; and a set-back to the equal-rights campaigns that have been going on for so long.

T runner wrote: »

I think the 4.4% Clearly indicates structural discrimination in Turkey as does our <14% ststistic.

It points that *maybe* there is structural discrimination. And *maybe* they aren't as interested in politics, and *maybe* Irish women aren't any good at politics. All options have to be considered and investigated.

T runner wrote: »

Do you think that the

Not sure on that one :pac:

gizmo555

kangaroo wrote: »

Senator Bacik has herself characterised herself as a feminist e.g. when standing for the European elections, I recall she described herself as a socialist and feminist (or was it socialist and feminist campaigner - something along those lines).

Ivana is a radical new left-wing and feminist voice in the Seanad.

http://www.ivanabacik.com/profile

T runner

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

You keep saying that -- but no country that has introduced a quota system has ever removed it -- what's to say they'd do it properly here?

The fact that no country has removed a quota system has more to do with its success than failure in my opinion.

It has worked well on both ends of the national spectrum: A modern western country like Sweden and aslo in post genocide Rwanda.

The only country where it did not work was France where the penalties were not set correctly. The state was to fine parties based on the percentage they were away from thier quota. They did, but the monies parties got based on the amount of seats won was not affected. So the financial penalties for big parties was negligable but for small parties was severe. The small parties obeyed it the larger parties didn't.

The country could probably not afford to have every family have *both* the mother and the father take the full length of maternity leave off -- that's why I said "replace it with parental leave" -- allow the couple to choose which one of the family goes to work, and which one stays at home. Right now, it's hard-coded to be the woman stays at home.

I agree there would be the option of the motehr or the father taking the time off.

How about they have debates on-line 4 days a week, with 1 day a week in Leinster House, *but* expand the working time to be more year-around? Does that sound fair to you?

Yep that sounds pretty good.

Do they have 40% reserved for men as well? Either way, they obviously don't have a true democratic system.

It is often reciprocated for both genders for fairness and for squaring anti-discrimination laws.

I would see political parties as needing to removing unnecessary barriers for people entering politics. There should be no disincentives for men used, just a level playing field focused solely on getting quality politicians. As well as increasing the amount of women: this should increase the pool of men for whom politics is accessible and therefore increase the quality and diversity of candidate.

You have good proposals, but I dont see our Dail implementing them

E.g the removal of article 41 sect 2 is unlikely with only 14% women in the Dail. This would be more likely to be an issue with say 38% women. That is one of the arguments for quotas. The more even the gender percentage in the dail the more likely that laws are passed to reflect that in policies.

T runner

kangaroo wrote: »

I think it is perfectly reasonable to point out the apparent hypocrisy of the situation.

And it gets to the part of the core issue: it does not appear that Senator Bacik and Prof. Drew have a problem with a lack of gender balance in circumstances when there is little or no male input.

So the Oireachtas committee is hypocritical because one of its members is on a mainly female committee for Womens Studies. The only case you can come up with is one which is naturally going to contain a very high amount of females in a subject of particular interest to women! There are obviously far more females interested in feminism than males. Is there a barrier for males getting onto this special interest committee?

I would suggest that the low amount of males is due simply and obviously to lack of interest. Positive discrimination in the form of a quota being unneccessary as no discrimination has taken place to begin with.

The quota system is put in place to redress an existing discrimination. Clearly neither you nor the letter writer in the times understands or deems it worth the bother to find out the reasoning behind the quota system. It just seems to be a case of clutching at any straws to discredit the persons involved at giving the report. Is the FF Chair on any all male committees I wonder?

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

I have met a few Swedish women, but not many. To be honest, politics never came up in discussion. As for Irish women...I know many of those, and, in general, most of them find politics a particularly boring subject.

But you rationalised that the fact that the quota system meant that 45% of Swedish TDs are female and 10 out of 22 of their government had no relevence to an Irish quota system, becuase Swedish women were different to Irish women. You plainly dont know what Swedish women are like so are not in position to make this deduction.

It points that *maybe* there is structural discrimination.

I have identified the structural discrimination here in the 6Cs and the selection convention. Are you now saying there is no structural barriers here to women entering politics?

and *maybe* Irish women aren't any good at politics.

Is that what you think? I think a lot of Irish men believe this deep down. Irish women have proven themselves in other fields, there is no reason for you to consider them to be "no good at politics".

You should note that the first MP was an Irish woman, that in the first Dail there was 7 Irish women unheard of in any country in the world. These women were put back in their place first violently during and after the civil war, the job being finished off by FF.

gizmo555 wrote: »

Ivana is a radical new left-wing and feminist voice in the Seanad.

http://www.ivanabacik.com/profile

kangaroo wrote: »

Senator Bacik has herself characterised herself as a feminist e.g. when standing for the European elections, I recall she described herself as a socialist and feminist (or was it socialist and feminist campaigner - something along those lines).

One of the joint Oireachtas committee is a feminist so what. Whats the politics of the FF chair? Whats your point? Attack the findings of the committee iof your able not the committee members.

@ KANGAROO

T runner wrote: »

That would be very much the exception and not the rule. The rule is: Young vulnerable girls, exploited drug addicts, and slaves.

Do you think that paying money for sex when your money will be used to exploit or enslave, young women and addicts is a crime?

Very Interested in your answer.

Still waiting........

kangaroo

T runner wrote: »

@ KANGAROO

That would be very much the exception and not the rule. The rule is: Young vulnerable girls, exploited drug addicts, and slaves.

Do you think that paying money for sex when your money will be used to exploit or enslave, young women and addicts is a crime?

Very Interested in your answer.

Still waiting........

I just dipped in. I still don't have time to reply but I am very unhappy to see this quote being repeated, as the phrase "your money" may look to people that I have said I use prostitutes.

I am issuing you a warning that if I see that wording again like that, I may very well complain.

maggy_thatcher

How would this quota system deal with single-issue parties? For example, if Fathers For Justice wanted to run candidates; chances are they would have great difficulty finding women candidates to run. Similarly, if a party was formed to increase women's roles in the military, they may find difficulty finding 33% male candidates.

SparkyLarks

T runner wrote: »

I would suggest that the low amount of males is due simply and obviously to lack of interest. Positive discrimination in the form of a quota being unneccessary as no discrimination has taken place to begin with.

Low males on a committee-- lack of intrest by the men

So why should we not conclude on the same rational that the lack of women in the Dail is due to a lack of intrest.

maggy_thatcher

T runner wrote: »

But you rationalised that the fact that the quota system meant that 45% of Swedish TDs are female and 10 out of 22 of their government had no relevence to an Irish quota system, becuase Swedish women were different to Irish women. You plainly dont know what Swedish women are like so are not in position to make this deduction.

But the key difference is that the Swedish system was voluntary. If it's voluntary, the party members obviously agreed with it. There are women party members in political parties here, and they haven't introduced it themselves, which would imply that Swedish people are different to Irish people.

T runner wrote: »

I have identified the structural discrimination here in the 6Cs and the selection convention. Are you now saying there is no structural barriers here to women entering politics?



Is that what you think? I think a lot of Irish men believe this deep down. Irish women have proven themselves in other fields, there is no reason for you to consider them to be "no good at politics".

Again, note the word *maybe*. I never once said that Irish women are no good at politics. Also, in what way are women affected by the 6C's more than men?

T runner wrote: »

You should note that the first MP was an Irish woman, that in the first Dail there was 7 Irish women unheard of in any country in the world. These women were put back in their place first violently during and after the civil war, the job being finished off by FF.

What evidence do you have of this (that the selection criteria changed in the 1920's to prevent women from entering?)

I guess the difference is that I'm in favour of eliminating discrimination to the point that the differences in gender is treated the same way as (we hope) the difference in skin colour is treated. You seem to be in favour of adding an additional discrimination in an attempt to balance other discrimination. When filling out a CV for a job, you aren't required (or even expected) to put your gender on it....the selection of a candidate for election should be the same.

An example of how pro-woman the laws are in this land -- http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0122/breaking32.htm -- a woman gets 7 years for a crime that if it was a man he'd have gotten life. The judge even said she was powerless to give her a larger sentence because of the way the laws have been written. We need to eliminate these different laws for genders, and just have a single rule for everybody. We certainly don't need to add more!

gizmo555

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

But the key difference is that the Swedish system was voluntary.

This is a key point. If the membership of a political party decides for itself to introduce gender-based candidate quotas, well that's entirely their business and good luck to them.

However, all the Irish Labour party's constitution says on the matter is this:

The Organisation Committee may recommend the number of candidates to be selected at a selection convention. Where more than one candidate is to be selected, the Organisation Committee may also prescribe outcomes with regard to the gender balance of the panel of candidates selected.

. . . rather vague and non-committal.

http://www.labour.ie/party/constitution.html

If they think gender-based quotas are such a good idea that they ought to be legislated for, why don't they lead by example and adopt firm quotas voluntarily? If there was popular support for such a move, they should gain electorally and other parties would either have to follow suit or lose ground to Labour. The implication must be that they don't actually have any confidence that such popular support exists and that if they move on this issue unilaterally, they will be the losers.

UPDATE:

In the 2007 general election, Labour ran 50 candidates, of which 11 (or 22%) were women - a long way short of its manifesto proposal for a legislative quota of 33%. If a "woman friendly", for want of a better phrase, party like Labour which aims to have at least 33% women candidates as a matter of policy can't make up the numbers, I think that's all the proof one needs that it's not old boy networks or Machiavellian machinations in selection committees which are preventing women from standing for election to the Dáil. [Apologies to Cllr Phil Prendergast of Clonmel, whom I mistakenly counted as a male candidate - doesn't materially alter the figures though.]

http://electionsireland.org/results/general/30thdail/candidates.cfm

T runner

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

How would this quota system deal with single-issue parties? For example, if Fathers For Justice wanted to run candidates; chances are they would have great difficulty finding women candidates to run. Similarly, if a party was formed to increase women's roles in the military, they may find difficulty finding 33% male candidates.

The unlikely event of a party running on a single (gender based) issue could be considered in the legislation. Minor detail.

SparkyLarks wrote: »

Low males on a committee-- lack of intrest by the men

So why should we not conclude on the same rational that the lack of women in the Dail is due to a lack of intrest.

The difference is that there is evidence of structural discrimination against women entering politics. There is no evidence of structural discrimination against men going on these committees. As these committees deal with feminist issues: non interest is the obvious reason.

I spelt this out in my post if you bothered to read it properly. (PLease dont ask what are the barriers, read the thread.)

T runner

kangaroo wrote: »

I just dipped in. I still don't have time to reply but I am very unhappy to see this quote being repeated, as the phrase "your money" may look to people that I have said I use prostitutes.

I am issuing you a warning that if I see that wording again like that, I may very well complain.

The "your money" is the general "ones money" I think this is obvious from the post, clearly no reference all intended to yourself personally.
This is a general question relating to part of the Law in Sweden.

BennyLava

judging by the quality of women in Irish politics, you'd be better off with a bounty rather than a quota

SparkyLarks

T runner wrote: »

The difference is that there is evidence of structural discrimination against women entering politics. There is no evidence of structural discrimination against men going on these committees. As these committees deal with feminist issues: non interest is the obvious reason.

I spelt this out in my post if you bothered to read it properly. (PLease dont ask what are the barriers, read the thread.)

I did read your post, agreed with some of the points not with others
but they have been discussed quite a bit.

My point is your flippant attitude to to discrimination against men.
i.e if men arn\'t there it\'s because they arn\'t intrested.

Similar to other claim I\'ve heard such as
\"Domestic violence agains men is statistically insignificant\"
Despite large bodies of research showing the opposite

Or the higly sexist claim that \"Women make better parents\", that is enshrined in our laws.

If we have quota\'s for the Dail should there not be quota\'s for commitees, and for all publically funded bodies

T runner

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

But the key difference is that the Swedish system was voluntary. If it's voluntary, the party members obviously agreed with it. There are women party members in political parties here, and they haven't introduced it themselves, which would imply that Swedish people are different to Irish people.

They havent introduced it here because they are too few women. For the 84% men its like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas. FF has 7% representation, so no chance.

If the legislation is passed then the Dail agrees with it which is enough.


From: Irish Times Article

Former Fine Gael minister for education Gemma Hussey told the Dáil sub-committee on Women’s Participation in Politics she was “not starry-eyed” about voluntary quotas for women.

“We’re talking about getting hands on power, not a garden party . . . voluntary doesn’t work,” she said.

Again, note the word *maybe*. I never once said that Irish women are no good at politics.

Even the fact that you consider this may be a reason says enough.
Do you think women are not as good at politics as men or not?

Also, in what way are women affected by the 6C's more than men?

cash, connections, culture, children, confidence and career.

Women tend to have less money, less connections in a male dominant culture. Poor childcare policies are a massive disadvantage. Lack of confidence (many men believe that "maybe" women arent up to the job. Less career oppurtunities.

What evidence do you have of this (that the selection criteria changed in the 1920's to prevent women from entering?)

Lets just say that any female politicians got the **** beat out of them by the new Irish state. The old style male dominated selection criteria took root again.

I guess the difference is that I'm in favour of eliminating discrimination to the point that the differences in gender is treated the same way as (we hope) the difference in skin colour is treated.

But you have no way of changing that. Positive discrimination is not ideal ut it is the only way.

You seem to be in favour of adding an additional discrimination in an attempt to balance other discrimination.

It is not discrimination. Incompetent parties who struggle with the quota may be forced to select candidates based on gender. The public will righly punuish them for their incompetence.

Is there discrimination against any gender in Sweden?

The discrimination theory only works in a world where potential men candidates are in general better than potential women candidates. This is not the case.

Which is better: Continue with the current policy and less than 14% women for another 100 years? Or quotas and force an evening up?

When filling out a CV for a job, you aren't required (or even expected) to put your gender on it....the selection of a candidate for election should be the same.

Yes but in effect that is happening anyway . Female candidates are not being selected. Their gender is de facto considered by teh male dominated hierarchy. The quota forces a reversal of this discriminatory policy.

An example of how pro-woman the laws are in this land -- http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0122/breaking32.htm -- a woman gets 7 years for a crime that if it was a man he'd have gotten life. The judge even said she was powerless to give her a larger sentence because of the way the laws have been written. We need to eliminate these different laws for genders, and just have a single rule for everybody. We certainly don't need to add more!

Ah here we go showing your true colours now? Women have the best of it do they? What about that Judge who got a suspended sentence while having horific paedophile photos on his computer? The presiding judge said it would do no good as the man was suicidal. What message does that give to other paedophiles?

Using one case to prove a rule is plainly ridiculous. Stick to the thread topic.

maggy_thatcher

T runner wrote: »

They havent introduced it here because they are too few women. For the 84% men its like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas. FF has 7% representation, so no chance.

As mentioned elsewhere -- if a quota system was so great, other parties (i.e. not FF) could always try it -- and if it is a roaring success, the other parties will follow suit -- exactly the same way as happened in Sweden.

T runner wrote: »

Even the fact that you consider this may be a reason says enough.
Do you think women are not as good at politics as men or not?

I think there are good men, good women, bad men and bad women. I said it has to be considered -- I didn't say I agreed with it.

T runner wrote: »

cash, connections, culture, children, confidence and career.

Women tend to have less money, less connections in a male dominant culture. Poor childcare policies are a massive disadvantage. Lack of confidence (many men believe that "maybe" women arent up to the job. Less career oppurtunities.

Money -- If they are married, they have the same access to the money that their husbands do. Just because there are more poor single women out there then there are poor single men doesn't mean we should give the poor single women a helping hand (without also helping the men). As for connections -- the connections are amongs a group of people. There are a lot of men who also don't have these connections, but they aren't being helped by your quota. Also, replacing maternity leave with parental leave will remove the children issue. As for confidence -- I want strong-willed candidates. For career -- start at the bottom and work up like everybody else.
Why not have a quota that says at least 33% of candidates should come from minimum-wage income earners (or those on the dole)? It's just as arbitrary a division, and they're affected by the 6 Cs just as much (if not more)?

T runner wrote: »

Lets just say that any female politicians got the **** beat out of them by the new Irish state. The old style male dominated selection criteria took root again.

How?

T runner wrote: »

But you have no way of changing that. Positive discrimination is not ideal ut it is the only way.



It is not discrimination. Incompetent parties who struggle with the quota may be forced to select candidates based on gender. The public will righly punuish them for their incompetence.

Make up your mind...either it's discrimination or it isn't discrimination. You are controlling the number of candidates by gender, therefore it is discrimination.

T runner wrote: »

Is there discrimination against any gender in Sweden?

Yes - they control who gets a candidacy based on their gender; ergo there is discrimination.

T runner wrote: »

The discrimination theory only works in a world where potential men candidates are in general better than potential women candidates. This is not the case.

If there is even one case of a man losing his candidacy because he is a man, then it is discriminatory. That's more than 'in general'. Or are you going to argue that this one individual is collateral damage in the aim of giving women a leg-up?

T runner wrote: »

Which is better: Continue with the current policy and less than 14% women for another 100 years? Or quotas and force an evening up?

I choose neither option. Try and address the issues in a gender-neutral way.

T runner wrote: »

Ah here we go showing your true colours now? Women have the best of it do they? What about that Judge who got a suspended sentence while having horific paedophile photos on his computer? The presiding judge said it would do no good as the man was suicidal. What message does that give to other paedophiles?

Using one case to prove a rule is plainly ridiculous. Stick to the thread topic.

That was because the Garda screwed up and went into his house without a warrant. What I'm saying is that we have laws in place that have different gender rules associated with them. We should have the same laws for all people; regardless of colour, creed or gender, not introduce new ones.

gizmo555

T runner wrote: »

Irish Times Article

From this article:

She [former Labour TD & Minister, Niamh Bhreathnach] said the Labour Party had worked hard to develop a quota of female candidates.

Despite this hard work, as we have seen, the Labour party ran only 22% women candidates in the last election. If this party, which wants to have a legal minimum of 33% can only manage by its own efforts to field two thirds of this number, where are the other women candidates to come from if quotas are introduced? Conscription for women?