Joan Burton's cabinet post (victim of sexism or not?)

jmayo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Very true.

KylieWyley wrote: »

I think that car crash of a performance on Vincent Brown single-handedly cost her the position.

Prior to that, she was in the forefront for all of Labour's pronouncements on economic policy and general debate.

After that, and for all of the election, she was kind of hidden away. Knowing that the election was always going to turn on the economy and considering she was the finance spokesperson, one would have to ask the question -> Damage limitation for Labour??

It's about substance and character, not gender.

The thing was when she first burst on the scene years ago I saw her torn apart in an economic discussion, she just didn't appear to have a clue.
In fairness over the years she did improve and got to know her brief quiet well.
But she was also perfect for the Gilmore's Labour tactics of just hammering the government and neglecting to come up with real policies.
I think as the election date neared she appeared to start losing more and more composure.
That night on the Vincent Browne show she was really torn apart and she then resorted to the claim that he was sexist bully.
Bad move.
I think her standing within the party was shown when the likes of Rabitte dismissed that and just said that Browne was a bully to everyone pure and simple.
Did Gilmore come out to bat for her ?

As regards OP's question.
I think she was a victim of her own failings.

Permabear wrote: »

It seems that as soon as any woman in politics does not get what she wants or expects, accusations of sexism and bias are bandied around. During election returns weekend, RTÉ interviewed Richard Boyd Barrett after he had narrowly defeated Mary Hanafin and Ivana Bacik to win the final seat in the constituency. They immediately asked whether he felt guilty about winning a seat that would otherwise have gone to a woman. I'm no fan of Boyd Barrett, but that was completely uncalled for.

Even though I think he is a tool, that was a ridiculous quesiton to ask the guy.
Should he have withdrawn because God forbid he might beat a woman ?

With the reasoning about gender quotas and what not, I can't wait to see an elderly black female disabled hindu candidate.
They will be a shoe in for Taoiseach. :rolleyes:

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

I gotta admit , I dont like Joan Burton and find her shrill.

So when I read this in the Irish Times about Eamonn Gilmore being sexist



Following on from this about Vincent Browne being sexist




I wonder.

To a TV journalist OK -he will run with the punches and he will, but to a party leader and cabinet colleague one would expect -wow that is something.

Is this spin or political banter or does she believe it.

I also wonder has she used the sexism tactic on people before as to be labelled misogynist or sexist is a fairly serious allegation nowadays.

She is a Chartered Accountant and Lecturer and those allegations if made in a firm or college could lead to all kinds of problems.

So what is she like

No idea what she's like, but she wasn't ditched because of her gender. She was in a most prominent position for nearly a decade - he hardly looked at a list and had a sudden outburst of misogyny at the last minute.

meglome

Personally it's gotten to the point when she comes on the TV I change the channel. I find her attitude, her voice and her manner horrible and I'm glad that she isn't in the cabinet. I'd be delighted if there were more women involved in politics, just not her.

Nodin

O, and don't forget
http://www.hairybaby.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage4guys&product_id=1611&category_id=13&category_parent_id=1&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There's also the argument to be made that female representatives volunteer themselves for such positions and policy areas. Surveys of female representatives and Dail committee compositions indicate that women do have a preference towards areas like Health, Education and Children as opposed to, say, Foreign Affairs. So it's not really a case of big bad men like Enda and Eamon forcing women to assume what could be seen as traditional roles: they choose those roles voluntarily.

efb

I think it's the media creating a problem to complain about. TBH I'd much rather have Howlin in the position that Burton, he seems much more level headed and a better person to have when it comes to negotiation

johngalway

meglome wrote: »

I'm glad that she isn't in the cabinet.

I hate to be the one who does it, but:

"She is now the Minister for Social Protection and party Deputy Leader."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Burton

CDfm

Commentary in todays Indo - should she have had the most senior job on offer or what.

Sam Smyth: Gilmore's Hell is full of women scorned

But Mr Gilmore's and the Labour Party's popularity plummeted through the election campaign while Fine Gael and Mr Kenny went on to fall just short of an overall majority.
Labour had an historic election victory too, yet by last night Mr Gilmore was counting the cost of his choices for Cabinet. He has paid the price among one of the largest constituencies in the Labour Party and beyond -- women.
Letters were written to newspapers yesterday but more of the women addressed their anger directly to Eamon Gilmore. How could he be so cavalier as to appoint Brendan Howlin to a cabinet position which they believed Joan Burton had earned through her years as the party's finance spokesperson?
Ms Burton, his deputy leader, was said to be "devastated" when she learned just minutes before the announcement of her position as Minister for Social Protection. Although hers is the highest-spending office in Government, Ms Burton didn't even try to disguise her disappointment.
Passing her over as Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, the most senior job on offer to Labour, was taken as a universal insult to women.
While Ms Burton was addressing her disappointment to Mr Gilmore, another high-achieving woman was not concealing her frustration.

The article puts it very well.

The skills it takes to win elections are different to what it takes to run a department. She is clever.

There is no doubt Joan Burton is clever and ambitious - leadership ambitious perhaps.

If you look at it the Union membership /labour stallworths in recent years have grown to 46% female membership whereas the leadership has been almost totally male.

So Joan Burton may have a point but the point may be that her leadership ambitions were twarted by the "Boys Club".

The secondary point is whether or not she has the skills for the job.

I was a big McCreavy fan and his speeches are nonsensical but he was brilliant as an accountant and very clever.

It was a huge loss when he went to Brussells.

If she was a guy what would she say ?

the late Judge Michael O'Leary , once Minister for Labour and Labour leader crossed the floor and joined FG.

It is easy to dismiss her and she has shown she will fight like an alleycat.

If I was FAS I would be scared as she has it all to prove - I would not dismiss her.

Dave!

God, they were talking about this on Newstalk a while ago too... absolutely ridiculous.

Howlin was a perfect choice for that portfolio, I don't see how, on merit, anyone can say that Burton would be a better person for negotiating with unions

Ivana Bacik is probably knawing her way through her lip at this moment.

Lyanna

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

There's also the argument to be made that female representatives volunteer themselves for such positions and policy areas. Surveys of female representatives and Dail committee compositions indicate that women do have a preference towards areas like Health, Education and Children as opposed to, say, Foreign Affairs. So it's not really a case of big bad men like Enda and Eamon forcing women to assume what could be seen as traditional roles: they choose those roles voluntarily.

Could you produce these surveys? Also, women are not a monolith; even if women are more likely to choose these roles voluntarily, that's not true for all women - a prime example would be Joan Burton.

CDfm

Lyanna wrote: »

Could you produce these surveys? Also, women are not a monolith; even if women are more likely to choose these roles voluntarily, that's not true for all women - a prime example would be Joan Burton.

That is true.

Does anyone know what the relationships are between all 3.

How do they get on & are they friends.

Who backed who in leadership campaigns.

Even in guy situations the best man does not always get the job,

So are there other factors we should exclude first

jmayo

CDfm wrote: »

...
I was a big McCreavy fan and his speeches are nonsensical but he was brilliant as an accountant and very clever.

Ok wash your mouth out.
A lot of our banking mess was down to the way mccreavy liked his lax regulation.

CDfm wrote: »

It was a huge loss when he went to Brussells.

Well you are right only because he was replaced with the bigger tool from Offaly, so yes he was a loss in relative terms.
BTW I still reckon we would have had massive banking meltdown if he had stayed.
Granted the public finances might not have been in such bad shape.

CDfm wrote: »

If she was a guy what would she say ?

Tough sh** ?

Lyanna wrote: »

Could you produce these surveys? Also, women are not a monolith; even if women are more likely to choose these roles voluntarily, that's not true for all women - a prime example would be Joan Burton.

Well I can see how you might have a different view about numbers of women in politics seen as you give your location as Italy.
Granted the entry requirements for women into Irish politics is not quiet of the same criteria as it is in Italy or at least the one supposedly practiced by one major party in Italy.

If it was then most of our women politicans, burton and shorthall included, would not get a sniff at being a spokesperson, nevermind cabinet. :rolleyes:

CDfm

jmayo wrote: »

Ok wash your mouth out.
A lot of our banking mess was down to the way mccreavy liked his lax regulation.

The Central Bank was independent under McCreavy.

Anyway, he left in 2004.

You could make an argument for it. Garret Fitzgerald is his chief critic and his record as Taoiseach was bad. Was it he who called the Health Service Calcutta.

Who made changes after that,

Lyanna

jmayo wrote: »

Well I can see how you might have a different view about numbers of women in politics seen as you give your location as Italy.
Granted the entry requirements for women into Irish politics is not quiet of the same criteria as it is in Italy or at least the one supposedly practiced by one major party in Italy.

If it was then most of our women politicans, burton and shorthall included, would not get a sniff at being a spokesperson, nevermind cabinet.

What "different view" am I expressing? I know Italian politics are horrifically sexist; they are certainly more so than Irish politics, but it doesn't necessarily follow that Irish politics are not sexist at all. I really don't see how this is relevant to my point (which was that women are not all the same, and that Joan Burton is probably not an example of a woman who wanted a "caring" ministry).

CDfm

Lyanna wrote: »

Joan Burton is probably not an example of a woman who wanted a "caring" ministry).

In her current state of mind if she got Department of Defence she woild rename ut the ministry of war.

th3 s1aught3r

Her own performance on TV was pretty terrible most times
Claiming 'sexism' is only a lame excuse by women when they dont get what they want

RacingSilver

How's this for reasoning ?

The unions gave the Labour Party a big donation to fight the election, which
means that they might expect something in return.
The unions are as usual trying to protect their own and don't care who suffers as long as it's not them.
So it obviously scares them when there is to be a new department for Public Expenditure and Reform
because that puts them and their members in the firing line.

So how are they going to get around this one ?
I know, force Gilmore to make Brendan Howlin the minister. Shure, isn't he one of their own.
His father was secretary of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union in Wexford for 40 years. His New Constituency Office is at Coolcotts, Wexford, in new SIPTU Building.
He'll look after them.

Am I completely off the wall here ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kenco

Read the article in the IT this morning and then heard the 'debate' on Kilberd Newstalk. Utter, utter nonsense about sexism which if anything is doing a disservice to women.

Prior to the election it was felt that if Labour got an economic ministry it would go to Pat Rabitte. Burton was never the shoe in she is being made out to be.

It is quite possible that Burton and Rabitte both wanted the gig and then Gilmore thought best to give it to neither and instead put Howlin who if far more experienced than either of them the job. He is also - to the best of knowledge - not close to the Unions and therefore well placed for this role which is only going to involve cuts, cuts and more cuts.

It is also possible that FG wanted Howlin in the role as he had served with Noonan in cabinet and could work with him. This may have been a problem with Burton (nothing to do with here gender) and also critically Rabitte.

Burton can have no complaints here as she was at best only second choice for this Finance role. She is good at what she does and will do a good job in Welfare/Protection. I am glad she is keeping quiet as to get caught up in this utter nonsense would only add fuel to the fire.

Again nothing to do with sexism but being protrayed by certain elements of the media as such. Stop treating us as idiots

Lyanna

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Really? So sexism never happens for real? I'm not sure this particular case is an example of sexism, but there's plenty of evidence that it does exist.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's a slap in the face to all women if she didn't get the job because she is a woman. It's a slap in the face to Joan Burton herself if she didn't get the job because of her personal qualities. It depends on how you read the situation, which probably depends on your perception of sexism in Ireland in the first place. Personally, I have not been arguing that Joan Burton has been discriminated against because I don't know if she has been.

However, my "women are not a monolith" comment was in response to Eliot Rosewater's suggestion that women had a tendency to prefer the "caring" portfolios. Even if that's true, it doesn't apply to all women, and it would therefore be discriminatory to suggest that Burton should have one of these ministries because she is a woman and women tend to prefer them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

Lyanna wrote: »

Could you produce these surveys?

The survey is referenced in the book Politics in the Republic of Ireland (Chapter 9) and dates from 2000.

More recent (and accessible) data can be gotten from analysing the composition of Dail committees. Women accounted for roughly 13% of representatives for the 30th Dail, so one would expect their representation on committees to be kind of similar.

Plucking out a few:

Committee - #women/#members - percentage women
Health and Children - 4/13 - 30%
Finance - 1/11 - 9% (Joan Burton)
Foriegn Affairs - 1/13 - 7%
Education - 3/11 - 27%
Justice - 1/13 - 7%

As you can see there are gender biases in areas like Health and Children.

Lyanna wrote: »

Also, women are not a monolith; even if women are more likely to choose these roles voluntarily, that's not true for all women - a prime example would be Joan Burton.

As Permabear pointed out, the inherent assumption in a thread on sexism is that women can be treated as a monolith.

Lyanna

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Of course it would have been. I didn't claim otherwise, nor would I.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That depends on your definition of "inherent obstacle". Yes, women can and do achieve politically in Ireland, so it is clearly not impossible for women to do so. The question is, is it harder for women to achieve in politics than it is for men? Are there obstacles that exist for women but not for men? If so, then gender discrimination does exist.

Taking your starting point of 1990, I've had a quick look through the cabinets since then. Here's what I got:

Cabinet as of 1/1/1990 (26th Dáil): 1 woman (Mary O'Rourke): 14 men
11/2/1992: 1 woman (Máire Geoghegan-Quinn) : 13 men
12/2/1993 (27th Dáil): 2 women (Niamh Bhreathnach; Máire Geoghegan-Quinn) : 13 men
15/12/1994: 2 women (Nora Owen; Niamh Bhreathnach) : 13 men
26/6/1997 (28th Dáil): 3 women (Mary Harney; Síle DeValera; Mary O'Rourke) : 12 men
6/6/2002 (29th Dáil): 2 women (Mary Harney; Mary Coughlan): 13 men
24/9/2004: 3 women (Mary Harney; Mary Coughlan; Mary Hanafin) : 11 men
14/6/2007 (30th Dáil): 3 women (same as above) : 13 men
2011 (31th Dáil): 2 women (Joan Burton; Frances Fitzgerald) : 13 men

That's 10 different women to have held ministries over a 21 year period. I think there's a reasonable case to be made that women, on the whole, have not been treated equally in this regard.

Permabear wrote: »

Honestly, I don't think Burton was put in Social Protection because it's seen as a "caring" role. That department currently commands a budget of over €20 billion a year, making it the single biggest spending department in government. Our social welfare system is rife with incompetence and is wide open to abuse. It's just the place for a strong-willed, occasionally intemperate accountant, rather than some "earth mother" type figure who just wants to care for everybody.

True, and I don't mean to denigrate the Department of Social Protection. It is an important role in government. Although I don't think any of the previous incumbents qualify as an "earth mother" either. :rolleyes:

.
.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The survey is referenced in the book Politics in the Republic of Ireland (Chapter 9) and dates from 2000.

I thought you said surveys, not survey. That's not to say that it's invalid by any means, but no one survey is perfect and it's always reassuring to have backup. Does the book state its methodology and sample size?

As for analysing the composition of committees, individual members don't just decide to join because the committee is relevant to their particular interests. According to oireachtas.ie, the Dáil decides the makeup of committees:

oireachtas.ie wrote:

Each House decides the Orders of reference, membership and powers of Committees.

Admittedly, this is rather unclear on who exactly decides the membership of committees, but it is an assumption to say that the gender biases evident in areas like Health and Children are entirely due to women's individual choices.

.
.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

As Permabear pointed out, the inherent assumption in a thread on sexism is that women can be treated as a monolith.

No, and that didn't make sense when Permabear said it either. The inherent assumption in a thread about sexism is that women (or, indeed, men) should not be treated as a monolith; they should be treated as individual human beings. You're not getting the point. This is what you said originally:

Surveys of female representatives and Dail committee compositions indicate that women do have a preference towards areas like Health, Education and Children as opposed to, say, Foreign Affairs. So it's not really a case of big bad men like Enda and Eamon forcing women to assume what could be seen as traditional roles: they choose those roles voluntarily.

So, women are more inclined to choose areas like Education and Children. However, this does not apply to all women, because they are not all the same. You make a logical error in jumping from the first point I've emboldened (the one stating which areas women are inclined to prefer) to the second point (that women choose traditional roles voluntarily). In the second point you appear to refer to all women, while the first point makes it clear that that the survey only refers to some women. Hence, you are treating women as a monolith.

Basically, the argument that some women are more interested in certain policy areas is utterly irrelevant when discussing one particular woman, because she is not necessarily representative of her fellow women.

Dave!

Lyanna what I can't understand is why is there a need for an equal/proportional number of women and men? Can men not make decisions that affect women? Does that mean that women cannot adequately make decisions that affect men?

And what's so special about gender specifically, as opposed to say race? Should there be quotas for the number of black people in the Dail? Should we ensure that the number of TDs exactly reflects the demographic makeup of the country, based on nationality and religion too? And will these quotas then change regularly based on population changes resulting from migration, etc.?

Lyanna

Please, point me to where I said there should be an equal/proportional number of men and women. Or where I suggested support for quotas (which, for the record, I am not in favour of).

Dave!

Oh sorry, I just jumped in at the end and didn't really read your posts if I'm honest

So we're in agreement! People should be elected and appointed to positions on merit, and once they're in those positions they should be treated the same as everyone else. The ratio of male:female, black:white, Catholic: Protestant should not be an issue at all, as long as everyone's appointed on merit.

metrovelvet

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Because it has often been used as a put down to women to discredit them and describe them as crazy. Probably because people mistakingly think that its origins are with HYSTERICAL.

I didnt see the Vincent Brown show you are talking about.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Anywhoodle

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

People can't think of any reason why Burton deserved an economics based Dept. (I agree that FG were always going to hang on to Finance)? Being Labour's finance spokesperson for almost 10 years doesn't count? Being qualified in this area in her pre-political life? She's always executed her role as financial spokesperson v. competently and clearly has a great brain for number-crunching. Anyone familiar with her Dail performances will know that she practically made a sport out of tripping up Gov. speakers when it came to financial detail etc. IMO Burton has an undeniable knack for economics. It's a waste of talent not to play to these strengths..

Speaking objectively, Ireland has had a female president since 1990. We have had two female Tánaistí, and other high-ranking female ministers. So I don't see that there's any inherent obstacle standing in the way of women's political achievement.

The Presidency isn't a policy-formulating office so I wouldn't count that to be honest.. As for the fact of female ministers and TDs, nobody's suggesting that women can't obtain these roles. It's the disproportionate infrequency with which they do so that suggests an 'obstacle.'

Permabear wrote: »

With two-thirds of the seats in government, Fine Gael were always going to have first dibs on Finance. A Labour minister was on the cards for the newly created Public Expenditure and Reform portfolio—but Joan Burton is a complete loose cannon. She could start a fight in a morgue, and simply cannot be trusted to be the dedicated and tactful negotiator that this position requires.

Calling Burton 'a complete loose cannon' because of some shouty TV/Oireachtas performances is hardly fair though. Political debate often involves dogmatic, point-scoring (Michael Martin, for example, did plenty of shouting-down during his campaign appearances. Didn't seem to hurt Pearse Doherty too much either..). Just because politicians are prepared to go after their opposition with all-guns blazing, does not mean that they would conduct themselves in the same way in a sensitive negotiation situation. You say Burton could 'start a fight in a morgue'? Isn't that just judging a book by its cover? Look at the likes of the superficially mild-mannered Richard Bruton who started an ill-judged, tactless, inopportune fight in his own resurgent party! Burton, to her credit, seems to be handling the present debacle with good grace and is giving absolutely nothing away. I'd say that shows quite a bit of tact..