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

Dave!

Anywhoodle wrote: »

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..



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.'



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..

But isn't Howlin's portfolio going to be more to do with negotiation with unions than number crunching and arithmetic?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

YEs I know, but my point is that many people don't know that, and use it in the same way that they use hysteria, so in common currency it has sort of taken on the same baggage if you get me.

Anywhoodle

Dave! wrote: »

But isn't Howlin's portfolio going to be more to do with negotiation with unions than number crunching and arithmetic?

That part of my reply was really directed towards the assertion that Burton hasn't done anything to merit an economics-based post.. But, in any event, the numbers are certainly going to provide much of the underpinning context for the negotiations with the unions. It's a post that will require a thorough understanding of the economic landscape.. Like I said, I also think it's quite unfair to brand Burton a poor negotiator just because she likes to lacerate the political opposition..

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wolfe Tone

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Victim of her own irrationality on Vincent Browne . Watch this trainwreck and tell me how she got into Cabinet at ALL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSnCj_ApI94

It just doesnt get better with time does it?

Black Swan

A quota for women sends the the wrong message to both genders; and frankly, I doubt that it would work in practice.

Gender roles are changing slowly, and occupational mobility and change in political professions (as well as in other career tracks) will change slowly too. This makes a lot of people uncomfortable, be they male or female, as often can be seen on threads such as these that discuss sexism, quotas, traditional roles vs changing roles, etc.

Since crossing the pond for university, I've noted that America has been in role transition too, but at the same time many point to gender issues regarding leadership in government, business, etc., where there are fewer women in office. First and foremost a person needs to be qualified, regardless of gender, and for whatever reasons, there are often fewer women than men in the pool of those qualified for office in past elections.

Is there conscious or unconscious discrimination against women holding leadership positions in government and business? I would assume so with a segment, but not all members of a population. I would also assume that those that discriminate against women in high office are not just men, but also a significant number of women. For example, there are more women qualified to vote than men in the US, so if women only voted for women, men would eventually be in the minority of office holders. Consequently, this suggests to me that quotas are not a solution to the problem, rather a gradual change in the roles and perceptions of women and men are necessary.

Times seem to be changing, if you can believe the Chronicle of Higher Education, which reports that there are now more women than men majoring in business in America. Should this trend continue, I would suspect that more women will break the glass ceiling and qualify for management rather than support positions, and eventually you will see more of them occupying management positions than in the past.

I would suspect that leadership in management can lead to leadership in government, especially in predominantly capitalistic countries where business often serves as a leadership training ground and social network for politics. If so, then in places where women pursue degrees in management in increasing numbers, you may also see an increase of them in politics.

SWK

sollar wrote: »

Victim of not being considered as good as brendan howlin for the job plain and simple.

That's definitely an opinion that's up for debate. Howlin does have ministerial experience but he's also one of the many school teacher-turned-politicians in the Dail. Whereas Burton has a degree in Commerce and lectured in Accountacy, which sound like qualifications that might be of use in the Dept. of Finance.

niallers1

She sounded as if she was just totally stressed out..

In hindsight she should not have gone on the show as it showed a weakness in public.

electrictrad

Anywhoodle wrote: »

I also think it's quite unfair to brand Burton a poor negotiator just because she likes to lacerate the political opposition..

I would tend to agree on that quote, but I think people are missing the reasoning here. . . it boils down to political sense here, and certainly not gender roles. . . apparantly Gilmore, Burton and Quinn scrapped over the role, not because the department was made for them, but because such a role is the kind of role that gives more power to the office-holder. . .both power within the party, but also electoral strength. . .for an example, Brian Lenihan was the only Fianna Fáil TD re-elected in Dublin. This can be traced to the perception (whether right or wrong), that he was doing something worthwile. As well as this, if he had been the one to move on Cowen, he would have beaten off Martin easily, who by the way played the leadership challenge perfectly. . .he was the only one smart enough to see that Cowen wasn't either viable, or going to recover, and he realised that if he offered an early challenge that he'd be in a position to reap the rewards. . .even if Cowen had survived to the election, he'd've been ousted and Martin would have taken over immediately after the election

Howlin was Labours only option for the role then politically . . .Gilmore couldn't risk a split or a coup by taking the role himself. . .especially after the "Gilmore for Taoiseach" flop. . ., and if he had then given the role to either Quinn or Bruton, he would be both undermined, and would anger one or the other. . .whereas Howlin is a senior party figure, guaranteed a cabinet seat already, loyal to Gilmore, and would see himself as a natural progression to party leader. . .but not likely to scare either Burton or any of the others should a leadership challenge arise. . .he was a neutral and safe choice in my opinion

On the issue of Burton, one could argue she has been handed the poisoned chalice. . .on the one hand, you'd imagine that Social Welfare would be the second most sought-after ministerial post for a Labour minister. . .but on the other hand, she will be in charge of cutting benefits to the very people who elected her. . .there is a serious chance that Gilmore is throwing her in here to die politically. . .and Social Welfare could be seriously damaging to her career. . .

There is also grounds to argue that if Burton had been the only person vying with Gilmore for the post, she would've got it . . .it might be safe to assume that Gilmore would feel she might consider herself a threat is she got picked ahead of Quinn. . .

Lyanna

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Did you miss the entire paragraph above that quote? Here it is again:

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.

You claimed that the female presidents and Táinistí we've had since 1990 is evidence that women don't face any inherent obstacles; I cited the figures for ministers to suggest that they do. I would have included the overall representative figures for women in the Dáil along with the figures for ministers but I didn't want to add to my already imposing wall of text (I accept that it would have been clearer if I had done that). The fact that only 13% of the 2007-11 Dáil were women adds to my argument that women face obstacles that men don't, rather than detracting from it.

Dave!

Anywhoodle wrote: »

That part of my reply was really directed towards the assertion that Burton hasn't done anything to merit an economics-based post.. But, in any event, the numbers are certainly going to provide much of the underpinning context for the negotiations with the unions. It's a post that will require a thorough understanding of the economic landscape.. Like I said, I also think it's quite unfair to brand Burton a poor negotiator just because she likes to lacerate the political opposition..

Well that'd be more significant if she were overlooked for the Minister for Finance job, but obviously Fine Gael got that. I'm sure you'd have to have a head for numbers to do Howlin's job too, but I would think that after serving as Minister twice before he'd be able to competently do the sums. A PhD isn't what's necessary in his role -- he'll have the Dept. of Finance at his disposal to check the numbers -- but good negotiation abilities, and experience, and I don't see what Joan Burton has in that regard which is better than Howlin. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that Labour had planned to split the Finance portfolio if they happened to be the main party, so they were probably grooming Burton for the full Ministry. But when they were given the specific task of public sector reform, Howlin's experience made him more attractive.

electrictrad

Lyanna wrote: »

women face obstacles that men don't, rather than detracting from it.

Nonsense, some jobs just attract greater numbers of male or female applicants. . .the ballot paper in Cork South-West had no women in it's list of 13 candidates. . .

For instance, on the jobs issue, when was the last time you saw an advert for a male childminder. . .imagine the obstacles that he faces looking for work. . .

eoinbn

SWK wrote: »

That's definitely an opinion that's up for debate. Howlin does have ministerial experience but he's also one of the many school teacher-turned-politicians in the Dail. Whereas Burton has a degree in Commerce and lectured in Accountacy, which sound like qualifications that might be of use in the Dept. of Finance.

The understand of economics that the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform will need is as follows: we are spending too much, reduce it- that's it.

Richard Bruton has experience as a minister, an M.Phil from Oxford in economics, was FG spokesman on finance for 8 years- why is there up roar that Noonan got the job before him?

Anywhoodle

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You could axe anyone who was an Opposition member during the FF era by that logic.. Collectively, they all had a watchdog function to perform. You can't heap sole responsibility on individual spokespersons.. My assertion that Burton is competent is based on her clear, in-depth grasp of financial matters. How can you condemn her (or any opposition member) for not cottoning on to the lax banking regulation? The right laws were in place. They simply weren't being enforced properly in practice. The depth of the agency-capture that was rife between the regulator and banks (and the disastrous consequences of this) wasn't readily observable from the outside.. Besides, what were the opposition supposed to do- openly impugn a civil servant (the regulator)?

Anyway... Some people aren't impressed by Burton. Fair enough. We can agree to differ..

metrovelvet

Is it possible she would not be appointed to a job that required tough negotiations with men because the men would not take her seriously?

I would not vote for a woman for US president because the US president has to have tough talks with leaders from nations who have nothing but contempt for women.

Lyanna

The US Secretary of State has a lot of those talks, and she is a woman, you know. I think your hypothetical female US President, or Irish Finance Minister would manage just fine.

electrictrad wrote: »

Nonsense, some jobs just attract greater numbers of male or female applicants. . .the ballot paper in Cork South-West had no women in it's list of 13 candidates. . .

For instance, on the jobs issue, when was the last time you saw an advert for a male childminder. . .imagine the obstacles that he faces looking for work. . .

Most adverts don't specify the gender of the childminder. In fact, it would be illegal to do so.

There's an entire oireachtas report that discusses the obstacles faced by women in politics:

 A legacy of conservative and traditional gender stereotypes
 Women tend to lack confidence compared to their male counterparts
 Women are more likely to lack the finance and the networks necessary to run
an election campaign
 The political culture in Ireland in the main is tailored for men
 The political culture is not family friendly and participation in political life can
be particularly difficult for mothers of young children
 Women are less likely than men to succeed in the political party candidate
selection process
 No sanctions are imposed on political parties which fail to ensure equal
opportunities for women
 The electoral system poses particular obstacles for women candidates

electrictrad

Lyanna wrote: »

Most adverts don't specify the gender of the childminder. In fact, it would be illegal to do so.

There's an entire oireachtas report that discusses the obstacles faced by women in politics:

I don't mean to belittle the role of women in politics, but such a report has not been undertaken about male childcare workers. . .there is far too much emphasis on the lack of women in this certain profession, while there are gender imbalances in nearly all professions. . .and there are prejudices and obstacles to be overcome by minorities in all jobs. . .men are prevailent in engineering, women in primary teaching, men in construction, women in nursing, men in surgery, women in occupational therapy. . .I could go on all day. . .

metrovelvet

Men are not in childcare because the pay sucks. When the pay goes up, men will go into childcare. ANd then we will all be paying higher childcare bills. Women and minorities have supplied the world with a plantation economy and once they enter a profession it becomes devalued.

electrictrad

metrovelvet wrote: »

Men are not in childcare because the pay sucks. When the pay goes up, men will go into childcare. ANd then we will all be paying higher childcare bills.

I don't agree. More men enter the religious orders than women, and the pay sucks there too. . .

metrovelvet wrote: »

Women and minorities have supplied the world with a plantation economy and once they enter a profession it becomes devalued.

Not true either, more women are now teachers, and the teaching profession is now more skilled, more diverse, and more inclusive than ever before.

It's true that some people do benefit from the suffering of minorities, but lets face it, any women who really wants to succeed can succeed, it's your own determination, intelligence, and skills that determine how you do in life. . .look at pirate queen Grace O'Malley for instance. . .

metrovelvet

Yes I agree that she can, that is not to dismiss class obstacles though, which apply to men too obviously.

She can provided she does not have children. Women have deluded themselves they can have it all. You cant be Mozart and also potty train and do the school run and the cooking and the cleaning, unless you have three nannies. Then you might have a shot.

I don't know much about Grace O'Malley. I imagine like Christopher Columbus, you also have to be a little bit nuts to do things like that.

Lyanna

electrictrad wrote: »

I don't mean to belittle the role of women in politics, but such a report has not been undertaken about male childcare workers. . .there is far too much emphasis on the lack of women in this certain profession, while there are gender imbalances in nearly all professions. . .and there are prejudices and obstacles to be overcome by minorities in all jobs. . .men are prevailent in engineering, women in primary teaching, men in construction, women in nursing, men in surgery, women in occupational therapy. . .I could go on all day. . .

Yes, but the prevalence of women in occupational therapy doesn't have much of an affect outside of occupational therapy. Politics, on the other hand, affects us all and such a large gender imbalance in that area has an affect on society as a whole. The male engineers and female nurses that you mention are not shaping all of our lives.

A comparable case would probably be that of men in teaching, as teachers also have a great effect on the society around them. There's been numerous suggestions that the lack of male teachers has a negative effect on children, particularly boys, who lack male role models. In fact, the Irish Primary Principals' Network (IPPN) has been actively calling for more male teachers because of this. I am in favour of encouraging more men to go into teaching for the same reasons that I would like to see more women in politics.

As for your reference to Grace O'Malley, exceptional women will always succeed. That doesn't mean that women and men have an equal opportunity to succeed.

Lyanna

metrovelvet wrote: »

She can provided she does not have children. Women have deluded themselves they can have it all. You cant be Mozart and also potty train and do the school run and the cooking and the cleaning, unless you have three nannies. Then you might have a shot.

And why, could you tell me, are potty training, the school run, cooking and cleaning solely women's responsibilities?

metrovelvet

Lyanna wrote: »

And why, could you tell me, are potty training, the school run, cooking and cleaning solely women's responsibilities?

They shouldn't be, but in reality they are.

For centuries 50% of the world's talent has been locked up in kitchens cooking and cleaning and nursing. Imagine what the world would be like if for centuries they had opportunities to do other things.

Lyanna

Precisely. And perhaps we could help remedy that problem by encouraging more women to participate in politics?

Eliot Rosewater

Lyanna wrote: »

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?

The chapter draws upon a number of different data sources, which I lazily referred to as surveys.

The book is only an introduction to politics, so it doesn't go into details. However I presume that the sample was all female representatives in the Dail at the time. Those questioned were asked to list the policy areas they were most interested in.

Lyanna wrote: »

As for analysing the composition of committees, individual members don't just decide to join because the committee is relevant to their particular interests.

Well, they kind of do. From the same book: "TDs are able to express preferences to which committees they wish to serve on, and given that many TDs are indifferent, those who want to be on a particular committee have a good chance of being selected for it. In the last analysis, though, the party leader, acting through the whip, assigns TDs to committees."

So, admittedly, one could now argue that the predominance of women on certain committees is due to party leaders selecting them without their advise. I don't find any particular reason to believe that though.

Lyanna wrote: »

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.

Not really. The thread asks, was Joan Burton a victim of sexism i.e. was she a victim of Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore viewing women as a monolith. One can't really be sexist if one treats all women as individuals. I'm working within that assumption.

electrictrad

Lyanna wrote: »

Yes, but the prevalence of women in occupational therapy doesn't have much of an affect outside of occupational therapy. Politics, on the other hand, affects us all and such a large gender imbalance in that area has an affect on society as a whole. The male engineers and female nurses that you mention are not shaping all of our lives.

A comparable case would probably be that of men in teaching, as teachers also have a great effect on the society around them. There's been numerous suggestions that the lack of male teachers has a negative effect on children, particularly boys, who lack male role models. In fact, the Irish Primary Principals' Network (IPPN) has been actively calling for more male teachers because of this. I am in favour of encouraging more men to go into teaching for the same reasons that I would like to see more women in politics.

As for your reference to Grace O'Malley, exceptional women will always succeed. That doesn't mean that women and men have an equal opportunity to succeed.

Excellent points, especially on the teaching.

However, I disagree that engineers don't affect society as a whole. Engineers are responsible for the world's technical development. They will be at the forefront of the drive towards reducing carbon emissions, and increasing the use of sustainable energy. A lack of women in engineering could hinder the roll-out and development of these vital advances, as there might not be the balanced opinion handy. . .

On the teaching, it is true that there is a lack of Irish male teachers, but that issue isn't highlighted nearly as much as the lack of women in politics. . .the fact of the matter is that as much as we'd like more male teachers, and more women politicians, the job to be done will remain similar or the same, and changing the job to reduce the gender imbalance will, more than likely, diminish the productivity of the job, and exclude more capable people instead of people of the opposite gender, on the grounds of gender. And then we are back to sexism.

hobochris

The fact that people would entertain the notion that this was a sexist choice, when its blatantly obvious that this woman has the tact and social etiquette of a Bull in a China shop(the reason she was obviously overlooked), Annoys me to no end.

Its a fluke this woman got to the top levels of any organization in the public eye and not because she is a woman, because as someone pointed out in this thread already, she is a train wreck, just looking for a place to happen.

Bullseye1

Lyanna wrote: »

Precisely. And perhaps we could help remedy that problem by encouraging more women to participate in politics?

I'm all for more talented women entering politics but not by negative means. If the man is more qualified he should get the job and vice versa.

Lyanna

@ Bullseye: I have never argued otherwise.

electrictrad wrote: »

On the teaching, it is true that there is a lack of Irish male teachers, but that issue isn't highlighted nearly as much as the lack of women in politics. . .the fact of the matter is that as much as we'd like more male teachers, and more women politicians, the job to be done will remain similar or the same, and changing the job to reduce the gender imbalance will, more than likely, diminish the productivity of the job, and exclude more capable people instead of people of the opposite gender, on the grounds of gender. And then we are back to sexism.

I didn't suggest "changing the job" to reduce the gender imbalance. Obviously, the primary function of teachers is to teach, and we should have the best teachers available regardless of gender. Likewise, I'm not in favour of gender quotas in politics because imposing a quota would lead to unqualified women gaining jobs in politics and that would have the effect you describe. However, far more teachers in Ireland used to be male, while many European countries have a much higher percentage of women in politics (not necessarily with the help of quotas). It's not as if politics is an unshakably male pursuit while teaching is inherently female. You're assuming that the only reason that few women are politicians and few men are teachers is simply because they don't want to be, and failing to take any other criteria (the oft-cited 5Cs for women in politics; the prevailing culture of childcare as a "woman's job" for men in teaching) into account.

As for your point about engineers, everyone has some effect on society but I don't think theirs is at the level of politicians and teachers.
.
.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The chapter draws upon a number of different data sources, which I lazily referred to as surveys.

The book is only an introduction to politics, so it doesn't go into details. However I presume that the sample was all female representatives in the Dail at the time. Those questioned were asked to list the policy areas they were most interested in.

Well, they kind of do. From the same book: "TDs are able to express preferences to which committees they wish to serve on, and given that many TDs are indifferent, those who want to be on a particular committee have a good chance of being selected for it. In the last analysis, though, the party leader, acting through the whip, assigns TDs to committees."

So, admittedly, one could now argue that the predominance of women on certain committees is due to party leaders selecting them without their advise. I don't find any particular reason to believe that though.

Thanks for the info; that sounds more convincing. I'm sorry I jumped on the use of the plural, but I've been in too many internet arguments where someone else's "irrefutable" sources consisted of one dodgy piece of research.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Not really. The thread asks, was Joan Burton a victim of sexism i.e. was she a victim of Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore viewing women as a monolith. One can't really be sexist if one treats all women as individuals. I'm working within that assumption.

I agree with that; it's exactly what I was trying to say. I phrased it very badly in the part you quoted but, in my defence, it's hard not to make the odd slip when you get inadvertently dragged into an argument with four people at once .