[Constitutional Convention][4][16 Feb 2013] Women in politics

RangeR

Greetings. My name is Keith Burke. I'm from Kildare. I was chosen to be one of the 66 citizens of Ireland to represent the wider citizen base in the Constitutional Convention. Some broad information can be found here. It looks mostly accurate

I'm not an expert in law, the constitution or politics. I want to educate myself in the various proposals to better allow myself discuss it on the day. I also want to hear what the wider citizen base think about the proposals.

The Convention are meeting on February 16th and 17th 2013 to discuss the fourth issue put to us.

Increasing the participation of women in politics

I cannot find any references in The Irish Constitution [PDF] relating to this issue. In fact, all references to politics appears to be gender neutral. I'm open to correction.

Request : This thread is not to discuss the Convention itself, please only discuss the pro's and con's of the thread topic.

#ccven - Discussing on the day.

I welcome your comments. Discuss.

P_1

If they're good enough to run they're good enough to run.

IMO positive discrimination can cause more problems than its worth.

Also I'm not sure what can be done with the constitution to encourage more women to run for office? I presume the pay is the same for both male and female public officers?

Iwasfrozen

I wouldn't support positive discrimination for women in politics inevitably means negative discrimination for men. Politicians should be elected based on the merits the electorate feel they would bring to the Dáil. No self respecting professional should sit a seat she acquired because of her gender.

crockholm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I wouldn't support positive discrimination for women in politics inevitably means negative discrimination for men. Politicians should be elected based on the merits the electorate feel they would bring to the Dáil. No self respecting professional should sit a seat she acquired because of her gender.

" no self respecting professional"these are political animals, completely different species.Terrible idea, potential to open a pandora's box of claims by other groups.Stand by your beliefs and let the electorate decide.

The Waltzing Consumer

Not in favour at all. I remember a wonderful comparison was made by someone on the radio in regards this.

They were debating Ivana Bacik and simply asked why did she campaign and argue for gender quotas, hence, giving importance to the presence of both women and men, but campaigned also for same-sex adoptions which gives the impression of hypocrisy as gender should not come into family and is more about a loving home.

So I do feel it is about ability rather then gender for politics and also the electorate should be able to decide themselves without any quota system. If the idiots of Kerry, Dublin, Tipp want to elect the likes of Haely Rae, Aherns and Lowry, well unfortunately, that's their right.

Podgerz

Any quota is a terrible idea and subversive to the idea of a democracy. If i am running for an office as a woman firstly I would want to believe I am a party's candidate as I am the best for the job, not because I am second best but am a woman, and if this passes that will be the issue exactly.

Secondly if I am voting for a candidate; there is no evidence of women being mistreated in this country in the political sector; and of course I am open to the possibility there is, but at the moment it seems the people who run at the minute believe themselves to be the best for the job and put themselves in front of the electorate on this basis.


The notion of a quota is ridiculous and undemocratic

Cookie_Monster

The only way it would work is that if you had (say) a 30% for men AND women, meaning you always have to have at least 30% of each, given that men doninate the area anyway it's unlikely it'll ever be invoked but you never know in the future.

Annasopra

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The only way it would work is that if you had (say) a 30% for men AND women, meaning you always have to have at least 30% of each, given that men doninate the area anyway it's unlikely it'll ever be invoked but you never know in the future.

That is how the quota enacted in law will work at the next general election

Annasopra

I'm personally very in favour of gender quotas but I'm not quite sure whether they should be constitutionally mandated

goose2005

I think that's far too small a step to make. Political leaders are overwhelmingly drawn from a minute fraction of Irish society - publicans, farmers, lawyers, teachers, an occasional trade unionist or doctor; mostly over 50 years of age; many related to previous politicians. Whether we have 1 female primary teacher to 3 male publicans or 1:1 isn't hugely relevant.

But, we already have a quota system: geographic quotas. The law mandates that there must be 7 from Kildare, 50-odd from Dublin, 5 from Mayo etc., so I don't see why gender quotas are much different - arguably a 30-year-old manual labourer from Ennis is better represented by a person of similar experience and background from Dundalk than he would be by a publican and politician's son who happens to live within 20 miles of him.

P_1

TBH rather than having quotas based on what the politicians have between their legs there should be quotas based on what they have inside their heads.

What I mean by that is that in order to run for office somebody must have met a minimal educational standard or have met a minimal business standard.

That IMO would give us a much better class of public official than by basing it purely on gender.

SeanW

Thanks for the thread OP.

I am in agreement with many of the above posters. We should aim for a society that is gender-blind, colour-blind etc. Merit all the way.

I most certainly would oppose writing discrimination into the constitution.

MagicSean

The constitution should be gender neutral when it comes to rights. An increase in women in politics should be brought about throught societal change alone.

Iwasfrozen

MagicSean wrote: »

The constitution should be gender neutral when it comes to rights. An increase in women in politics should be brought about throught societal change alone.

This, there should be no constitutionally mandated difference between men and women.

Zulu

OP, it's a f'in disgrace frankly.

There can be no room for discrimination in an egalitarian society.

How is this concept future proofed? In ten/fifty/a hundred years when/if there are more/equal amounts of candidates, how will this be revoked?

Also, by accepting the logic behind this, you are accepting the premise that men are unable to represent women. And more importantly, you are disregarding the vote of the citizen who elected the representative.

The constitution should value, protect & represent the CITIZEN, not the gender of the citizen.

RangeR

Zulu wrote: »

OP, it's a f'in disgrace frankly.

There can be no room for discrimination in an egalitarian society.

How is this concept future proofed? In ten/fifty/a hundred years when/if there are more/equal amounts of candidates, how will this be revoked?

Also, by accepting the logic behind this, you are accepting the premise that men are unable to represent women. And more importantly, you are disregarding the vote of the citizen who elected the representative.

The constitution should value, protect & represent the CITIZEN, not the gender of the citizen.

I'll take your "You" quote to mean the "Royal You", per say, and not myself personally

Listen, I'm not disagreeing with you. I see no part for ANY discrimination in our document. I still welcome opinion on both sides so an informed decision can be made.

WoolyJumper

I support the idea of gender quotas. I agree it is kind of positive discrimination but sometimes that is necessary. A previous poster said that there needs to be a societal change to encourage women to go in to politics. This could be the very thing to do it. I don't think it is giving women a huge advantage over men, it's just making sure that when it comes to a vote that there are some women on the ballet paper. Which i think will greater represent society and give people more of a diverse candidate list (which is something we need at the moment) This isn't about discriminating against men, its about encouraging women into politics. Also we are not the first country to do this. Sweden did it and it worked, it encouraged more women into politics and eventually the quota was no longer necessary and was removed.

Victor

MagicSean wrote: »

The constitution should be gender neutral when it comes to rights. An increase in women in politics should be brought about throught societal change alone.

A short diversion.

Last year a group called Women On Wheels (WOW) https://www.facebook.com/events/388659181146064/ was formed to promote the position of women with regard to cycling. The current ratio is about 3:1 male:female. Cycling campaigning is even more male dominated.

I was originally reluctant, on Peoples' Front of Judea / Judean People's Front grounds and the risk of the situation reinventing the wheel (and coming up with a confused message), but having heard some of the female cyclists speak about what affects them as 'women involved in cycling' as opposed to ''people involved in cycling', it became clear that there were differences in how certain matters should be dealt with.

So, there are issues that affect women (in particular less well off / less well educated women) that aren't dealt with or are dealt with incorrectly. It would be useful to have a situation where women were heard more and women, especially young women, had more and better role models. A quota may be useful in achieving this.

It may be possible to create such a quota by denying state funding to parties that don't have some diversity of representation. I'm not sure of the constitutionality of that at the moment, so having something in the constitution may be prudent.

Should such quotas extend beyond gender? It would need to be somewhat simple.

Zulu

It's laughable to compare us to Sweden for a start. Especially when you overlook state childcare.

Secondly, why do you think that having over (or less) of any sex makes a difference to the quality of candidate? Do you feel one gender is incapable of representing another? Do you extend this logic to race and creed also? (I assume you wouldn't suggest that black people are incapable of representing white people) Isn't it ironic you don't extend this courtesy to men!

And finally, why is getting "women into politics" more important than democracy to you?

SeanW

WoolyJumper wrote: »

I support the idea of gender quotas. I agree it is kind of positive discrimination but sometimes that is necessary. A previous poster said that there needs to be a societal change to encourage women to go in to politics. This could be the very thing to do it. I don't think it is giving women a huge advantage over men, it's just making sure that when it comes to a vote that there are some women on the ballet paper. Which i think will greater represent society and give people more of a diverse candidate list (which is something we need at the moment) This isn't about discriminating against men, its about encouraging women into politics. Also we are not the first country to do this. Sweden did it and it worked, it encouraged more women into politics and eventually the quota was no longer necessary and was removed.

With all due respect, that's exactly what its about. These things are, by and large, only sought by the hard-feminist-left (i.e. man haters).

You mention Sweden, the same feminist-left dominated country where they started the "Swedish model" on prostitution ... need I say more?

It doesn't matter how many ways you dress up this plan for discrimination as "positive" or "reverse" discrimination. It's still discrimination.

Annasopra

SeanW wrote: »

With all due respect, that's exactly what its about. These things are, by and large, only sought by the hard-feminist-left (i.e. man haters).

You mention Sweden, the same feminist-left dominated country where they started the "Swedish model" on prostitution ... need I say more?

It doesn't matter how many ways you dress up this plan for discrimination as "positive" or "reverse" discrimination. It's still discrimination.

With all due respect. I'm a man. I strongly support gender quotas. I am not a man hater. Your argument that only mysandrists seek quotas is absolute and uttter nonsense.

P_1

As I said already, the only ground that somebody should be discriminated on is ability.

It shouldn't matter who you are, what gender you are, where you're from etc so long as you can do the job and do the job well

SeanW

mango salsa wrote: »

With all due respect. I'm a man. I strongly support gender quotas. I am not a man hater. Your argument that only mysandrists seek quotas is absolute and uttter nonsense.

So you're the equivalent of a Black Klansman. Doesn't change the fact that this comes from a hard-feminist-left agenda, which you seem to have bought hook-line-and-sinker.

RangeR

SeanW wrote: »

So you're the equivalent of a Black Klansman

Guys, let's try not fall under the radar of the mods on the first day of the thread.

oscarBravo

Victor wrote: »

A quota may be useful in achieving this.

But should it be written into the Constitution?

It seems to me there's a worrying trend of legislating through Constitutional provisions, starting with the ridiculous divorce criteria.

hatrickpatrick

The law should be completely gender blind and so should the constitution. And I say this as someone who voted for Mary Mitchell O'Connor in the last election (although based on her performance, in particular relation to internet censorship and regulation, I might seriously reconsider that during the next election).

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

But should it be written into the Constitution?

It seems to me there's a worrying trend of legislating through Constitutional provisions, starting with the ridiculous divorce criteria.

I disagree with a gender quota, but I can see the point of writing it into the constitution - a constitutional provision ties the government's hands, unlike an election which gives them carte blanche to steamroll over their manifestos once they have their seats. Sadly I don't trust our politicians to behave themselves without being forced to do so in manners such as this.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I disagree with a gender quota, but I can see the point of writing it into the constitution - a constitutional provision ties the government's hands, unlike an election which gives them carte blanche to steamroll over their manifestos once they have their seats. Sadly I don't trust our politicians to behave themselves without being forced to do so in manners such as this.

That's an argument in favour of writing all legislation into the Constitution; which is to say a self-defeating argument. Tying the government's hands is a great idea, if you subscribe to the view that the government shouldn't be allowed to govern.

Zulu

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sadly I don't trust our politicians to behave themselves without being forced to do so in manners such as this.

Yeah but would you trust them anymore simply because they had vaginas?
Or, to put it another way, is your trust directly proportional to the amount of mickies?

Is willy density really the root of our ills?


Is farcical really, isn't it?

p1akuw47h5r3it

Zulu wrote: »

Yeah but would you trust them anymore simply because they had vaginas?
Or, to put it another way, is your trust directly proportional to the amount of mickies?

Is willy density really the root of our ills?


Is farcical really, isn't it?

I also think this is farcical. Ireland simply doesn't "do" good politicians. When you go into the booth to vote you are already limited in the candidates that you really want to vote for because frankly most are ****, and you usually end voting for the best of the worst (at least I do).

All this quota will do is further limit the options available to you which as I've said are already pretty limited. I also disprove of positive discrimination as I believe discrimination of any kind is wrong. I certainly wouldn't want this enshrined in the constitution.

WoolyJumper

Zulu wrote: »

It's laughable to compare us to Sweden for a start. Especially when you overlook state childcare.

Secondly, why do you think that having over (or less) of any sex makes a difference to the quality of candidate? Do you feel one gender is incapable of representing another? Do you extend this logic to race and creed also? (I assume you wouldn't suggest that black people are incapable of representing white people) Isn't it ironic you don't extend this courtesy to men!

And finally, why is getting "women into politics" more important than democracy to you?

I am not saying sex makes a difference in the quality of a candidate but when over 50% of the population are women and yet are so under represented on the ballet paper it tells me there is something wrong with the system. Thing is when women are on the ballet they tend to do very well (which means when they are there we tend to vote for them). You mentioned state childcare..I agree this is a problem and perhaps if there were more women in politics it wouldn't be.

This doesn't effect democracy imo. There are already quotas in place (must be a certain number from Dublin, Cork etc) All this is about is making sure there are women on the ballet paper (you don't have to vote for them if they are bad candidates or you disagree with there politics) This might be a controversial thing to say and you might disagree but women bring a different perspective and dynamic to politics which is something we really need at the moment.

I understand the point you're making about creed and race etc i don't think there should be quotas for that but at the same time if 50% of the country were black and only 15 percent of people in the the dail were black i'd have to question why that was and should something be done about it.

15% is the number of women in the dail and thats the highest number on record i believe so things are slowly improving so maybe this is just the little push it needs.

SeanW wrote: »

With all due respect, that's exactly what its about. These things are, by and large, only sought by the hard-feminist-left (i.e. man haters).

You mention Sweden, the same feminist-left dominated country where they started the "Swedish model" on prostitution ... need I say more?

It doesn't matter how many ways you dress up this plan for discrimination as "positive" or "reverse" discrimination. It's still discrimination.

Yeah please elaborate, maybe explain what you mean by "Feminist left" :rolleyes: Really though Sweden seem to be doing pretty well for themselves as a country....not a bad place to look when you want to build a fair society.

Also as far as im aware the same quotas will be in place for men so really its not discrimination.

This isn't about feminism (im a man ) I think its about having a better representation.

WoolyJumper

oscarBravo wrote: »

But should it be written into the Constitution?

It seems to me there's a worrying trend of legislating through Constitutional provisions, starting with the ridiculous divorce criteria.

That's actually a fair point, i dont know if its necessary to put it in the constitution, especially if the aim is to eventually remove the quota when things "even out"

WoolyJumper

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I also think this is farcical. Ireland simply doesn't "do" good politicians. When you go into the booth to vote you are already limited in the candidates that you really want to vote for because frankly most are ****, and you usually end voting for the best of the worst (at least I do).

All this quota will do is further limit the options available to you which as I've said are already pretty limited. I also disprove of positive discrimination as I believe discrimination of any kind is wrong. I certainly wouldn't want this enshrined in the constitution.

why would it limit your options? Because there are some women instead of men? If anything it will add a few new faces to the ballets and give us some new options

p1akuw47h5r3it

WoolyJumper wrote: »

I am not saying sex makes a difference in the quality of a candidate but when over 50% of the population are women and yet are so under represented on the ballet paper it tells me there is something wrong with the system.

Maybe women simply don't want to go into Politics. What exactly do you think it is that is stopping women going into politics? Are there any barriers to entry that don't apply to men?

I understand the point you're making about creed and race etc i don't think there should be quotas for that

Why not? This might be a controversial thing to say and you might disagree but minority groups would bring a different perspective and dynamic to politics which is something we really need at the moment.

p1akuw47h5r3it

WoolyJumper wrote: »

why would it limit your options? Because there are some women instead of men? If anything it will add a few new faces to the ballets and give us some new options

SOrry for the double post only saw this after I posted above!

Because a quota of woman and/or men would have to be met which would mean that certain candidates (who could be a better option) would not be on the ballot due to their gender.

WoolyJumper

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Maybe women simply don't want to go into Politics. What exactly do you think it is that is stopping women going into politics? Are there any barriers to entry that don't apply to men?



Why not? This might be a controversial thing to say and you might disagree but minority groups would bring a different perspective and dynamic to politics which is something we really need at the moment.

Sure there are no outright reasons..but there are probably historical and sociological barriers that these quotas might help to remove

First of all women are not a minority in this country (in fact just slightly the majority) and like i said if 50% of people in the country were black and only had 15 % rep in the dail (at its highest) i'd say there was something wrong there

p1akuw47h5r3it

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Sure there are no outright reasons..but there are probably historical and sociological barriers that these quotas might help to remove

First of all women are not a minority in this country (in fact just slightly the majority) and like i said if 50% of people in the country were black and only had 15 % rep in the dail (at its highest) i'd say there was something wrong there

Ok and so you would bring in a quota based on race? Do you really think that would be acceptable, to possibly deny a person a minsterial position due to the colour of their skin?

But what sociological and historic reasons? I'm not trying to be pedantic just generally curious.

Scofflaw

Zulu wrote: »

Yeah but would you trust them anymore simply because they had vaginas?
Or, to put it another way, is your trust directly proportional to the amount of mickies?

Is willy density really the root of our ills?


Is farcical really, isn't it?

Inappropriately so, I think.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Zulu

WoolyJumper wrote: »

I am not saying sex makes a difference in the quality of a candidate but when over 50% of the population are women and yet are so under represented on the ballet paper...

This is the LIE that I hate.

What does "under" represented mean anyway? "Inadequately represented" according to a dictionary. So, your position is that men are inadequate are representing women. Why? Why can't I, a man, represent a woman? I take it you don't really believe that my micky gets in the way, so what is it? do you simply believe that men aren't as good as women?

Worse still, your position is that a man is inadequately representing my wife. Who are you to determine the value of her vote?

The simple fact is that men can represent women as women can represent men. If you want to encourage women into politics encourage the women you know to step up to the plate. AND if a political party blocks a legitimate female candidate, then come back to me & I'll fight tooth and nail with you to ensure she's given an EQUAL opportunity.

But I will not tolerate a biased opportunity; I will not tolerate a discrimination based on gender. It's wrong, and we all know it.

P_1

I don't think that gender quotas would work with our current system of elections. If we changed to the German system, for example, then it could work.

That's coming from a practical perspective.

Annasopra

P_1 wrote: »

I don't think that gender quotas would work with our current system of elections. If we changed to the German system, for example, then it could work.

That's coming from a practical perspective.

We will have gender quotas in legislation from the next general election. A minimum of 30% of candidates who are nominated by political parties to contest the election have to be female or male.

P_1

mango salsa wrote: »

We will have gender quotas in legislation from the next general election. A minimum of 30% of candidates who are nominated by political parties to contest the election have to be female or male.

Didn't actually realise that. That, combined with our largely personality voting method for electing politicians is a recipe for disaster IMO

WoolyJumper

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Ok and so you would bring in a quota based on race? Do you really think that would be acceptable, to possibly deny a person a minsterial position due to the colour of their skin?

But what sociological and historic reasons? I'm not trying to be pedantic just generally curious.

If that were the case then i think they should be considered, yeah.

Well im no expert in sociology or history but quickly off the top of my head, women having to leave there jobs in the civil service when they got married and historically womens position in society in general can create a sociological barrier. Also politics in Ireland isn't very female (or family)friendly at the moment, with the hours and traveling up to Dublin so by bringing women into the dail it might make it more female (and family) friendly and therefore encourage more women.

In saying all this, gender quotas is just one solution (that has worked for Sweden) there maybe other other solutions but i do think there is a problem when you look at the amount of women in the dail. I think its too simple to say women just don't want to be politicians...you have to question why that is

MagicSean

mango salsa wrote: »

We will have gender quotas in legislation from the next general election. A minimum of 30% of candidates who are nominated by political parties to contest the election have to be female or male.

The better solution would be to ban political parties altogether. They are the ones that control entry in to politics for the most part. They control votes in the Dáil and senate and punish members for not voting as told. Their whole existence is an afront to the democratic process.

crockholm

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Sure there are no outright reasons..but there are probably historical and sociological barriers that these quotas might help to remove

First of all women are not a minority in this country (in fact just slightly the majority) and like i said if 50% of people in the country were black and only had 15 % rep in the dail (at its highest) i'd say there was something wrong there

One may ask about the potential for gerrymandering,but as I don't see women being corralled into certain area's,this point is invalid.Giving me a 50 metre head start on usain bolt in a 100m sprint may also be good for equality as only 1 caucasian has run 100m sub 10 seconds,but it makes the event farcical.This is the epitome of quango-inspired politicking, and detremental to our democracy.

WoolyJumper

Zulu wrote: »

This is the LIE that I hate.

What does "under" represented mean anyway? "Inadequately represented" according to a dictionary. So, your position is that men are inadequate are representing women. Why? Why can't I, a man, represent a woman? I take it you don't really believe that my micky gets in the way, so what is it? do you simply believe that men aren't as good as women?

Worse still, your position is that a man is inadequately representing my wife. Who are you to determine the value of her vote?

The simple fact is that men can represent women as women can represent men. If you want to encourage women into politics encourage the women you know to step up to the plate. AND if a political party blocks a legitimate female candidate, then come back to me & I'll fight tooth and nail with you to ensure she's given an EQUAL opportunity.

But I will not tolerate a biased opportunity; I will not tolerate a discrimination based on gender. It's wrong, and we all know it.

No, this is not what im saying at all. When 50% of the population are women yet so few appear on the ballet paper im saying there is something wrong there. We dont pick who ends up on the ballet but when women appear on it we tend to vote for them.

I said nothing about men not being able to represent women. In saying that we dont have things like state childcare, and then there is the abortion mess. Women aren't always well represented by men.

Annasopra

Zulu wrote: »

This is the LIE that I hate.

What does "under" represented mean anyway? "Inadequately represented" according to a dictionary. So, your position is that men are inadequate are representing women. Why? Why can't I, a man, represent a woman? I take it you don't really believe that my micky gets in the way, so what is it? do you simply believe that men aren't as good as women?

Worse still, your position is that a man is inadequately representing my wife. Who are you to determine the value of her vote?

The simple fact is that men can represent women as women can represent men. If you want to encourage women into politics encourage the women you know to step up to the plate. AND if a political party blocks a legitimate female candidate, then come back to me & I'll fight tooth and nail with you to ensure she's given an EQUAL opportunity.

But I will not tolerate a biased opportunity; I will not tolerate a discrimination based on gender. It's wrong, and we all know it.

Firstly

Please do not state "we all know it's wrong". Many people agree with quotas. Your view is not everyones view so stop claiming it is.

If we think back to the Ireland of the 1970s for a minute; marital rape was legal, children born outside of marriage were stigmatised with illegitamacy, married women were barred from working in the civil service, leaving cert papers were colour coded on your gender, condoms were illegal, gay male sex was illegal and divorce was illegal.

The legislature entirely made up of men massively resisted most of those changes. Of course there were a few notable exceptions; Noel Browne, Jim Kemmy, Michael D, Patrick Hillery (as EU commissioner) - This changed because of feminist social movements but also it changed with the entry of more women into politics in the 1980s - women such as Nuala Fennell, Monica Barnes, Gemma Hussey, Eileen Desmond, Maire Geoghegan Quinn and Mary Robinson made a big impact on these social issues and improved the lives of many women, children and men too.

On a local level I was recently talking to some county councillors about the types of queries that they get. Their experience is that female councillors tend to get queries such as community facilities, childcare, healthcare whereas male councillors tended to get more queries about business and planning.

crockholm

Is using public service forced retirements really pertinent to the thread? We can say many things about the modus operandii of Ireland ca.1980 that mean nothing today.
"female friendly" and "family friendly"? I'm not going to take the bait on those plums.
As for Sweden, please tell us where are all the women at the top are? I see Reinfeldt and Borg, socialists are run by an ex-union man, SD run by a man. the highest profile female probably being Annie Lööf, the leader of the centre party with a whopping 4% of the electorate

P_1

Seems this debate is getting fairly heated between 2 sides. I wonder if it'd be worthwhile if participants were to disclose if they are male/female, feminist/anti-feminist/can't we all just get along. Because I see the potential for some trench warfare here.

WoolyJumper

crockholm wrote: »

Is using public service forced retirements really pertinent to the thread? We can say many things about the modus operandii of Ireland ca.1980 that mean nothing today.
"female friendly" and "family friendly"? I'm not going to take the bait on those plums.
As for Sweden, please tell us where are all the women at the top are? I see Reinfeldt and Borg, socialists are run by an ex-union man, SD run by a man. the highest profile female probably being Annie Lööf, the leader of the centre party with a whopping 4% of the electorate

Im not baiting, i was answering someone else's question. Like i said im no expert but there can be an argument made that politics in Ireland in not very female or family friendly....you're entitled to disagree.

I just did a quick google and in 2011, 45% of the Swedish parliament were made up of women so in that sense it was successful. This isn't about women being on top, its about getting more women in politics.

Silentcorner

I would have a problem with gender quotas on the ballot paper, it will not increase the standard of candidate, in fact the kind of woman who would excel in politics would also be the kind of woman who would be most offended by gender quotas.

I would have no issue however with allocating political funding (from the exchequer) based on the number of female delegates...I have no idea how that could be implemented