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

oscarBravo

mango salsa wrote: »

We will have gender quotas in legislation from the next general election.

And that's where such quotas belong. If they have a positive outcome, they can be kept in place. If they appear to be working but with room for improvement, they can be improved by the Oireachtas. If they (for reasons unforeseen) have negative consequences, they can be removed by the Oireachtas.

MagicSean

mango salsa wrote: »

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.

Weren't a lot of those issues you mention challenged in the courts by men?

Why does a representative body have to be made up of an equal gender proportion in order to be properly representative. That's an incredibly sexist policy. Can a man not represent the views of a woman or vice versa?

Zulu

mango salsa wrote: »

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.

You misinterpret. I was saying that we all know "biased opportunity" & sexual discrimination is wrong. But perhaps we don't. Perhaps some here agree with sexual discrimination. If thats the case it's a shame. I would really have hoped that that kind of historic thinking belonged in the past.

If we think back to the Ireland of the 1970s for a minute; marital rape was legal, ....

...and people were discriminated against because of their gender.

Victor

Perhaps don't think of it as 'discrimination' or 'positive discrimination', but 'correcting existing discrimination'.

Zulu wrote: »

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

If I can suggest that it sounds like you are undervaluing some peoples' votes by that comment.

The simple fact is that men can represent women as women can represent men.

But do they do so adequately?

If you want to encourage women into politics encourage the women you know to step up to the plate.

What better way to do so by providing role models?

Zulu

Victor wrote: »

Perhaps don't think of it as 'discrimination' or 'positive discrimination', but 'correcting existing discrimination'.

(At best) Correcting discrimination with more discrimination isn't something I can happily accept.
(At worst) Correcting perceived discrimination with actual discrimination is a terrible idea.

I struggle to comprehend why this is difficult to understand. I suspect that this is understood but deeded acceptable. An "acceptable causality" in the pursuit of a "fairer society for women". Sadly there seems to be little room in this new society for democracy.

If I can suggest that it sounds like you are undervaluing some peoples' votes by that comment.

I fail to see how. I'm not suggesting that anyone's vote was for a person who can't represent them; I'm not second guessing anyone else's vote.

But do they do so adequately?

I see no evidence to suggest that they don't.

What better way to do so by providing role models?

Depends on who the role model is. A token role model could do more harm than good.

A genuine role model however, is an inspiration.


And finally, I'm not undervaluing gender specific role models, but wouldn't you rather work towards a future society where role models weren't gender specific? Wouldn't it be a marvelous future society where the gender of a boys or girls role model wasn't a primary concern?

gizmo555

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.

Not quite. It's not compulsory, but parties which don't reach these minimum percentages won't receive state funding.

It remains to be seen where parties will find the needed women candidates.Even Labour, which has been pushing hardest for this change and has had it as party policy for some time didn't reach it in the 2011 election - they had 26.5% women candidates. (And we had the disgraceful attempt to squeeze out Anne Ferris as a candidate in Wicklow in favour of the son of retiring TD Liz McManus . . .)

p1akuw47h5r3it

Victor wrote: »

Perhaps don't think of it as 'discrimination' or 'positive discrimination', but 'correcting existing discrimination'.If I can suggest that it sounds like you are undervaluing some peoples' votes by that comment.

But do they do so adequately?

What better way to do so by providing role models?

By what... More descrimination? Ye, great idea!

Victor

MagicSean wrote: »

Why does a representative body have to be made up of an equal gender proportion in order to be properly representative.

Not equal proportions, but (somewhat) balanced proportions.

Can a man not represent the views of a woman or vice versa?

Do men get told 'Oh, this is a girl's school, we don't do higher level maths'.

MagicSean

Victor wrote: »

Not equal proportions, but (somewhat) balanced proportions.


Do men get told 'Oh, this is a girl's school, we don't do higher level maths'.

No. But that hardly means they are incapable of representing someone who does get told.

Annasopra

MagicSean wrote: »

Weren't a lot of those issues you mention challenged in the courts by men?

Why does a representative body have to be made up of an equal gender proportion in order to be properly representative. That's an incredibly sexist policy. Can a man not represent the views of a woman or vice versa?

Some of them were challenged by men. Most of them were not. I firmly believe that if more women in power in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s a lot of those changes would have happened much much sooner.

To be honest in a broad range of policy areas for example policy on domestic violence, childcare, sexual violence, reproductive healthcare I would much rather have a parliament that has some more voices of women than the present parliament.

Of course a man can represent the views of women but he can never fully understand the experiences of female rape, abortion, pregnancy, childbirth, female breast cancer etc

Zulu

Victor wrote: »

Do men get told 'Oh, this is a girl's school, we don't do higher level maths'.

Do women? And if they do, I'd suggest tackling that problem with a) the school, and b) the department of education.
Introducing sexual discrimination into the selection of political candidates is no sure solution to this issue. But if you think the solution to gender stereotypes lies in further gender discrimination then there's little I'll be able to say to convince you otherwise

Zulu

mango salsa wrote: »

Of course a man can represent the views of women but he can never fully understand the experiences of female rape, abortion, pregnancy, childbirth, female breast cancer etc

so you'd advocate similar quotas for travelers, roma gypsies, nigerians, polish, and Chinese (to name a few)?
Clearly and Irish man could never fully understand the experiences of these immigrants and their unique issues? Or are your concerns limited to gender issues?

Annasopra

Zulu wrote: »

so you'd advocate similar quotas for travelers, roma gypsies, nigerians, polish, and Chinese (to name a few)?
Clearly and Irish man could never fully understand the experiences of these immigrants and their unique issues? Or are your concerns limited to gender issues?

It's different with Women because they are 50% of the population as opposed to a minority. I certainly do think that politics does need to hugely more representative and needs to widen participation from minority groups. I care about many issues of equality/inequality - gender is one of them.

Victor

Zulu wrote: »

so you'd advocate similar quotas for travelers, roma gypsies, nigerians, polish, and Chinese (to name a few)?
Clearly and Irish man could never fully understand the experiences of these immigrants and their unique issues? Or are your concerns limited to gender issues?

With the exception of the travellers, how many of those are citizens?

MagicSean

mango salsa wrote: »

Some of them were challenged by men. Most of them were not. I firmly believe that if more women in power in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s a lot of those changes would have happened much much sooner.

To be honest in a broad range of policy areas for example policy on domestic violence, childcare, sexual violence, reproductive healthcare I would much rather have a parliament that has some more voices of women than the present parliament.

Of course a man can represent the views of women but he can never fully understand the experiences of female rape, abortion, pregnancy, childbirth, female breast cancer etc

How is female rape different to male rape? How is breast cancer different to testicular cancer or prostate cancer? How is reproduction not an issue for both mother and father? You mention policies on domestic violence. Our domestic violence legislation is very strong and there are a lot of supports for women. Only a few for men. You are taking issues which affect both sexes and making them out to be female issues.

The only issue that can actually be attributed to women only is pregnancy. Yet in this area we are very progressive. Maternity leave, benefits and anti-discrimination law. Low maternity death rates. In fact it is fathers who are discriminated against for the most part.

jank

Gender quotas fly in the face of what a republic should be about. Why do we always try and legislate away the ills of society. All in the name of equality? Putting people up for election based on their gender?

Annasopra

MagicSean wrote: »

How is female rape different to male rape? How is breast cancer different to testicular cancer or prostate cancer? How is reproduction not an issue for both mother and father? You mention policies on domestic violence. Our domestic violence legislation is very strong and there are a lot of supports for women. Only a few for men. You are taking issues which affect both sexes and making them out to be female issues.

The only issue that can actually be attributed to women only is pregnancy. Yet in this area we are very progressive. Maternity leave, benefits and anti-discrimination law. Low maternity death rates. In fact it is fathers who are discriminated against for the most part.

I don't view equality as "everyone is the same and we must deny all differences" - I view equality as recognising that there are very distinct differences - firstly if we talk about rape/sexual assault - there is a difference for women because much are violently and sexually assaulted - the SAVI report http://www.drcc.ie/media1/savi-report/ shows that women experience sexual violence and sexual assault differently. Different cancers affect males differently to females. Again I don't see the need to deny differences. Women have different reproductive systems and different health needs as a result of that. Again I don't see why these differences are being denied. Domestic violence is an issue for men and women in different ways. The issues that I mentioned do affect women differently to how they affect men.

Victor

Actually, what if something slightly different was done? That the constitution be amended to require (as opposed to one of those fuzzy, aspirational sections) the Oireachtas to reflect wider society (with some definitions included) in their make up and to leave the nitty-gritty to the Oireachtas.

In the Oireachtas was exclusively comprised of UCD-educated, brown-haired, transgendered, Asian Pastafarians over the age of 76, then we would know something was wrong.

Amirani

Whatever about having quotas about the number of each gender represented on the ballot paper, which I frankly disagree with, how is it possible, feasibly or morally, to ensure there is a certain quota in the Dáil.?

Is it simply a case of having elections as normal and once there's 115 men (70%) elected the returning officer announces, "right lads, that enough lads, only women from now on in". This would mean that the positive discrimination would only be in effect in the constituencies that count slowest. Or is it proposed that each constituency has at least 30% women. Thus it would be mandated that a 4 seat constituency has an equal number of males and females.

I fail to see how this could work in practice given our constituency system, without even getting into the rights and wrongs of it all.

Annasopra

It's not possible under our current electoral system to have quotas where 30% of those elected have to be male or female.

Victor

NiallSparky wrote: »

Whatever about having quotas about the number of each gender represented on the ballot paper, which I frankly disagree with, how is it possible, feasibly or morally, to ensure there is a certain quota in the Dáil.?

Is it simply a case of having elections as normal and once there's 115 men (70%) elected the returning officer announces, "right lads, that enough lads, only women from now on in". This would mean that the positive discrimination would only be in effect in the constituencies that count slowest. Or is it proposed that each constituency has at least 30% women. Thus it would be mandated that a 4 seat constituency has an equal number of males and females.

I fail to see how this could work in practice given our constituency system, without even getting into the rights and wrongs of it all.

I'm not sure if that is practical - all you would have to do is have a few bomb scares at certain count centres to delay the counts in those constituencies to skew the result.

Thus it would be mandated that a 4 seat constituency has an equal number of males and females.

What if there was only one male or one female candidate?

Having the quota nationally and for candidates as opposed to TDs means that natural variations - and the freedom to vote for whoever you want - can be allowed for.

Cookie_Monster

Victor wrote: »

Do men get told 'Oh, this is a girl's school, we don't do higher level maths'.

not in so many words but most schools will offer only certain subjects based on demand for the likes of the leaving cert cycle, with the like of accounting usually being one of the first to get the boot in girls schools. Some get to the point where they refuse to offer it on the basis of lack of demand historically which is pretty close to what you're saying...
(also my school didn't offer PE if you did honour maths for example)

Zulu

Victor wrote: »

With the exception of the travellers, how many of those are citizens?

All of them. Are you suggesting that noone from those groups has ever been accepted as a citizen of this state?

mango salsa wrote: »

It's different with Women because they are 50% of the population as opposed to a minority.

Oh right, "it's different" because there are more of them.
Ok so, perhaps a more concise change would be better? One that isn't gender specific, but rather along the lines of: once a distinguishable group that accounts for more than 40% of the population is present, then a quota of said group must be present in the dail. Wouldn't that be better than simply scrutinising genders?

That said, surely if one group is such a significant portion of society, and as such, has a significant portion of the vote, then they will be represented fairer than groups that are a smaller percentage of society (with a smaller voting lobby; a smaller portion of the vote; a smaller voice).

You claim to care about equality, but you're more concerned about the "louder shout" than the "whisper".

Frankly, it would be best to simply let the population vote for their own representatives. Let any citizen that want to, stand for office - as opposed to shoe-horning in citizens to make up numbers. That said, I do agree that the current system has failed the state. The fact that a politician can promise the sun moon and stars, then renege all once elected is a sham. The fact that there is no accountability is a sham.

But the solution does not lie with introducing a discrimination.

Annasopra

Zulu wrote: »

You claim to care about equality, but you're more concerned about the "louder shout" than the "whisper".
.....

But the solution does not lie with introducing a discrimination.

I do care about equality. Frankly telling me what kind of equality I care about is patronising when you know absolutely know nothing about me.

I do not see gender quotas as discriminatory. I see them as part of attempts to redress the imbalances of a lack of females in politics in order to bring women in politics up to a level playing field. They are an attempt to break down the barriers of womens entry into politics.

Zulu

I understand the goal; I've no problem with that, it's the solution I disagree with. I disagree with your machiavellian approach to the problem.

RangeR

Zulu wrote: »

I understand the goal; I've no problem with that, it's the solution I disagree with. I disagree with your machiavellian approach to the problem.

A good few of our remit items are, in my opinion, not the best way at fixing the problem. I believe, the problem is the entire electrol system. For example, I don't believe that reducing the voting age is the answer to the problem last week. I believe the answer is abolishing the PR-STV and bringing in a different method.

Our meetings are quite frank, behind closed doors. One of the 33 was VERY frank with me about this. He said that the majority of politicians pander to the
"grey vote" [his words] because it's, generally, the older generation that consistently vote.

I don't see reducing the voting age changing this. I believe the PR-STV has to go. With what, I don't know but there are alternatives.

We will be discussing the entire Electoral system in May / June. It is in THESE two sessions where I see us doing our best work.

P_1

RangeR wrote: »

A good few of our remit items are, in my opinion, not the best way at fixing the problem. I believe, the problem is the entire electrol system. For example, I don't believe that reducing the voting age is the answer to the problem last week. I believe the answer is abolishing the PR-STV and bringing in a different method.

Our meetings are quite frank, behind closed doors. One of the 33 was VERY frank with me about this. He said that the majority of politicians pander to the
"grey vote" [his words] because it's, generally, the older generation that consistently vote.

I don't see reducing the voting age changing this. I believe the PR-STV has to go. With what, I don't know but there are alternatives.

We will be discussing the entire Electoral system in May / June. It is in THESE two sessions where I see us doing our best work.

Actually agree with you there Keith. IMO discussing the role of women in politics is useless unless you discuss it in the context of the electoral system

Victor

Zulu wrote: »

All of them. Are you suggesting that noone from those groups has ever been accepted as a citizen of this state?

With citizenship, they become Irish.

Other than Irish-British, Irish-American and similar identities, there are (as yet) relatively few people with Irish citizenship and non-Irish ethnicity. However, those people are gradually making an inroads into politics and, if anything, receive a generally positive reaction from political parties and the electorate.

Zulu

Victor wrote: »

With citizenship, they become Irish.

Yes, I know. But citizenship doesn't change their past experiences, does it?

<Sigh> Victor, can you really not accept the salient point I'm making?

MagicSean

As far as I can see there are really only two issues when it comes to women in politics. The first one is representation. Can a man properly represent a woman on all issues? Mango seems to think not. I disagree. While they may not be able to experience first hand some of ordeals od the other sex that does not mean they cannot understand the effects of these experiences or experience them through their wife/partner/daughter. Can a male psychiatrist properly treat a female? Can I female teacher properly teach a male? Can a male doctor properly advise a pregnant woman? Of course they can. To say otherwise is to engage in blatant sexism.

The second issue is barriers. Are there barriers which affect the chance of women going into politics. Many people seem to think there is. They mention things like child minding. In my opinion there are no barriers other than a need to conform to social "norms". A single father would have just as many issues entering politics. But there are so few single fathers out there. Why is this? Is it because the law automatically awards custodial rights to the mother? Most likely. So now you have a case where the child minding issue only seems to affect women but this is only because of the overall discrimination against men with regard to parenting. I guess what I'm saying is, if we address discrimination in other parts of society we won't have to engage in it here.

RangeR

MagicSean wrote: »

The second issue is barriers. Are there barriers which affect the chance of women going into politics.

Of course there are barriers. Some are just life choices, as you mention. Some are more nefarious. I believe there is the known phenomenon called the Glass Ceiling. I have heard, admittedly anecdotal, that there are barriers in politics that are just not spoken about. Now, this used to be a huge problem over the years and, I believe, is getting better as the years go on and as mindsets are a changing. As we can see, there are women now in the House [quasi forced or whatever]. But we still have a long ways to go.

I REALLY don't believe that putting gender into the constitution is the correct way to resolve the issue. In fact, the gender items that are already mentioned should be removed. I see no place for any discrimination, positive, negative or whatever, in our good book.

If the politicos REALLY feel the need to pass some laws about women in politicos, then use legislation, not the constitution.

Zulu

I disagree with your "glass ceiling" assertion, but the rest of your post in on the button.

p1akuw47h5r3it

mango salsa wrote: »

I do care about equality. Frankly telling me what kind of equality I care about is patronising when you know absolutely know nothing about me.

I do not see gender quotas as discriminatory. I see them as part of attempts to redress the imbalances of a lack of females in politics in order to bring women in politics up to a level playing field. They are an attempt to break down the barriers of womens entry into politics.

WHat type of equality? WHat does that mean? Surely the only type of equality is the one where everyone is equal...

P_1

DanDan6592 wrote: »

WHat type of equality? WHat does that mean? Surely the only type of equality is the one where everyone is equal...

Ah but can't some people be more equal than others

RangeR

P_1 wrote: »

Ah but can't some people be more equal than others

Only if yer in Governmental power

jackofalltrades

Completely against gender quotas in politics. It should be purely based on merit.

WoolyJumper wrote:

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.

Why is there the automatic association between women and family? You seem to be implying that it's somehow male friendly to work long hours and to be on the road a lot of the time. More female TD's isn't going to reduce the hours needed to do the job or make it any easier.

All quotas will do is to make it easier for women to have a work/family balance due to preferential treatment on candidate selection. While making it harder for men to maintain a work/family balance due to having to work harder to remain on the ballot paper.

SeanW

Victor wrote: »

Perhaps don't think of it as 'discrimination' or 'positive discrimination', but 'correcting existing discrimination'.

Trying to redefine words now? Sounds very Orwellian to me ...

George Orwell, Animal Farm wrote:

Squealer, with very round cheeks, twinkling eyes, nimble movements, and a shrill voice. He was a brilliant talker, and when he was arguing some difficult point he had a way of skipping from side to side and whisking his tail which was somehow very persuasive. The others said of Squealer that he could turn black into white.

Which is exactly what your post is trying to do, dressing up discrimination as the exact opposite. I.E. pointing at something black and saying ... "look, it's really white."

It doesn't matter how you try to twist words or redefine the language. You're still supporting discrimination. End of story.

SeanW

(I wonder if someone could translate Victors' post into Newspeak, it would be somehow very appropriate) :rolleyes:

Annasopra

DanDan6592 wrote: »

WHat type of equality? WHat does that mean? Surely the only type of equality is the one where everyone is equal...

Did you read the post that was responding to?

sparkling sea

OP would love to be you

Article 41 of Bunreacht na hEireann (our Constitution) specifies the sanctity of the family, organised around women’s care and men’s breadwinning and Article 41.2.1 and 41.2.2 state:
1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home (Bunreacht na hEireann).

Some theorists suggest that this is a patronising and discriminatory view and has ensured, to paraphrase Tovey and Share, that in fight for gender recognition, particularly within feminist groups, an emphasis has been placed on women’s distinctiveness, even though they are attempting to eliminate inequalities that form this frame of gender difference. There has been the greatest resistance to claims made based on equal treatment in the labour market and social policy, though Ireland’s membership in the EU has led to recognition of these types of claims.
The pay gap between men and women was 25 per cent when the first European directive on equal pay was adopted in Ireland in 1975 and all these years later, it is still about 15 per cent.

And here is yet another reason we need gender quotas - and why we need to change from the positive constitutional discrimination that has existed for men, to an equal footing for women

The Irish Times – Monday, November 28, 2011 by Roisin Lawless

There were 566 candidates fielded in the last general election. Only 86 were women. The average success rate for both men and women in that election was the same: 29%, which would indicate that there is no bias against female candidates among the Irish electorate.

The candidate selection processes of political parties have been identified as posing a significant obstacle to the political participation of women (due to a prevailing masculine culture, perhaps?). In Fine Gael for example, 42% of the membership is female yet only 15% of candidates fielded in election 2011 were women.

It is now time that political parties field candidates who are reflective of the electorate they will represent. Our public representatives exist to represent the people. Women make up 50% of the population but have never made up more than 14% of TDs.

It may take decades before all social, cultural and political barriers preventing equal representation of women are tackled. Quotas can “kick-start” the process of getting more women elected to the Dáil.

As Garret FitzGerald said, “Our party system, lacking significant female input, is bound to be incomplete and defective”.

RÓISÍN LAWLESS, Áth Buí, Co na Mí.

The information speaks for itself and even though we know the reason for the problem, it still remains a problem that needs a solution. I hope gender quotas go someway towards addressing it.
We’ll have to wait and see whether the huge majority of middle aged white men in politics will leave the huge majority of not middle aged white men on the party ticket - without legislation for gender quotas, I doubt it!
The best indicator of the future actions of policitans is their past actions. In the past they haven't introduced gender quotas and women haven't progressed in political parties, at anywhere near the rate of men, this despite their strong membership of parties. We need gender quotas now - for the short term at least.

You should also have a look at this site; its the global data base of quotas for women - Ireland lags far behind http://www.quotaproject.org/aboutQuotas.cfm

SeanW

sparkling sea wrote: »

OP would love to be you

Thank f**k you're not, or you would no doubt be trying to crowbar your desire for discrimination into the constitution.

sparkling sea

SeanW wrote: »

Thank f**k you're not, or you would no doubt be trying to crowbar your desire for discrimination into the constitution.

And your answer is based on what - jumping to conclusions and not looking at the actual facts, thats what keeps us in the mess we are in, emotive bull.

The facts speak for themselves, not my views - misogny and discrimnation are already written into the Constitution; I just want equality for all - men and women.

Your reply demonstrates there is still some way to go before the positive dicrimination that exists towards men who enter politics is abandoned. Hopefully women will soon be given an equal footing both in the Constitution and in political parties.

Zulu

So essentially your solution to discrimination is: more discrimination! Genius!!


...emotive bull indeed :rolleyes:

Zombrex

We have never needed legally enforced participation (ie gender quotas) to get minority or under represented groups involved in politics before. We don't require 10% of TDs to be gay, or Polish or from Cork.

It is sexist and patronizing to suggest we need this for women under some misguided notion of helping women. That is even before you get to the undemocratic aspect of quotas.

What we need is to remove barriers to participating and provide wider support and encouragement for women who wish to enter politics, from the local to the national level.

jackofalltrades

sparkling sea wrote:

The candidate selection processes of political parties have been identified as posing a significant obstacle to the political participation of women (due to a prevailing masculine culture, perhaps?). In Fine Gael for example, 42% of the membership is female yet only 15% of candidates fielded in election 2011 were women.

Women made up 8% of independent candidates in the 2011 general election. If the selection processes of political parties was designed to discriminate against women, can you explain why Fine Gael selected women at double the rate when compared to them self selecting themselves by running as an independent candidate?

If you look at the labour party, even though only 4% of their members are women they made up 26% of electoral candidates. Being a women in this party gives you a much higher chance of being selected for being an electoral candidate over a man.

It may take decades before all social, cultural and political barriers preventing equal representation of women are tackled.

And what are these barriers?

We’ll have to wait and see whether the huge majority of middle aged white men in politics will leave the huge majority of not middle aged white men on the party ticket - without legislation for gender quotas, I doubt it!

I really don't see why you are bringing race into this discussion.

You should also have a look at this site; its the global data base of quotas for women - Ireland lags far behind http://www.quotaproject.org/aboutQuotas.cfm

Good to see a list where I'm proud that Ireland lags behind.

MagicSean

sparkling sea wrote: »

OP would love to be you

Article 41 of Bunreacht na hEireann (our Constitution) specifies the sanctity of the family, organised around women’s care and men’s breadwinning and Article 41.2.1 and 41.2.2 state:
1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home (Bunreacht na hEireann).

Some theorists suggest that this is a patronising and discriminatory view and has ensured, to paraphrase Tovey and Share, that in fight for gender recognition, particularly within feminist groups, an emphasis has been placed on women’s distinctiveness, even though they are attempting to eliminate inequalities that form this frame of gender difference. There has been the greatest resistance to claims made based on equal treatment in the labour market and social policy, though Ireland’s membership in the EU has led to recognition of these types of claims.
The pay gap between men and women was 25 per cent when the first European directive on equal pay was adopted in Ireland in 1975 and all these years later, it is still about 15 per cent.

And here is yet another reason we need gender quotas - and why we need to change from the positive constitutional discrimination that has existed for men, to an equal footing for women

The Irish Times – Monday, November 28, 2011 by Roisin Lawless

There were 566 candidates fielded in the last general election. Only 86 were women. The average success rate for both men and women in that election was the same: 29%, which would indicate that there is no bias against female candidates among the Irish electorate.

The candidate selection processes of political parties have been identified as posing a significant obstacle to the political participation of women (due to a prevailing masculine culture, perhaps?). In Fine Gael for example, 42% of the membership is female yet only 15% of candidates fielded in election 2011 were women.

It is now time that political parties field candidates who are reflective of the electorate they will represent. Our public representatives exist to represent the people. Women make up 50% of the population but have never made up more than 14% of TDs.

It may take decades before all social, cultural and political barriers preventing equal representation of women are tackled. Quotas can “kick-start” the process of getting more women elected to the Dáil.

As Garret FitzGerald said, “Our party system, lacking significant female input, is bound to be incomplete and defective”.

RÓISÍN LAWLESS, Áth Buí, Co na Mí.

The information speaks for itself and even though we know the reason for the problem, it still remains a problem that needs a solution. I hope gender quotas go someway towards addressing it.
We’ll have to wait and see whether the huge majority of middle aged white men in politics will leave the huge majority of not middle aged white men on the party ticket - without legislation for gender quotas, I doubt it!
The best indicator of the future actions of policitans is their past actions. In the past they haven't introduced gender quotas and women haven't progressed in political parties, at anywhere near the rate of men, this despite their strong membership of parties. We need gender quotas now - for the short term at least.

You should also have a look at this site; its the global data base of quotas for women - Ireland lags far behind http://www.quotaproject.org/aboutQuotas.cfm

Ah yes the pay gap. Can you actually name a job where a woman would be paid less than a man assuming all other circumstances other than gender are the equal? Is the pay gap not just a temporary situation that exists as women take advantage of the elimination of barriers to equal emplyment? A situation that will inevitably disappear as time goes on.

Also, as to gender quotas. Have you any reason to put forward as to why gender quotas should be enshrined in the constituion instead of just adapted at party level? Have you any justification for directly discriminating against a male applying for the same position as a female?

MagicSean

sparkling sea wrote: »

And your answer is based on what - jumping to conclusions and not looking at the actual facts, thats what keeps us in the mess we are in, emotive bull.

The facts speak for themselves, not my views - misogny and discrimnation are already written into the Constitution; I just want equality for all - men and women.

Your reply demonstrates there is still some way to go before the positive dicrimination that exists towards men who enter politics is abandoned. Hopefully women will soon be given an equal footing both in the Constitution and in political parties.

Could you indicate where this misogny is written into the constitution? Can you state in what way positive discrimination towards men exists?

Basically can you actually explain or back up a single thing you have said?

Zombrex

MagicSean wrote: »

Could you indicate where this misogny is written into the constitution? Can you state in what way positive discrimination towards men exists?

Really? You have read the constitution, right

Article 41.2
In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.


The constitution is sexist and demeaning to woman. But gender quotas are not the answer to that.

MagicSean

Zombrex wrote: »

Really? You have read the constitution, right

Article 41.2
In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.


The constitution is sexist and demeaning to woman. But gender quotas are not the answer to that.

That section is sexist in that it discriminates against men by not recognising their contribution to the home and be not giving them the promise of financial security that is given to women. It gives a positive right to women that is not extended to men.

Zombrex

MagicSean wrote: »

That section is sexist in that it discriminates against men by not recognising their contribution to the home and be not giving them the promise of financial security that is given to women. It gives a positive right to women that is not extended to men.

Having your expected social role defined in law is not a "positive right". Men are not mentioned because men were considered free to do what ever the heck they wanted. Women were to be mothers and home makers.

Saying this is sexist against men is a bit like saying that Indian cast system was classist against rich people because it demanded that only the poor work in the sewers or handled waste. What if the rich wanted to work in the sewers, those poor rich people! :P