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

sparkling sea

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.

You need to read the Constitution and look at its aspirations.

It was written in a time of gender inequality, that is the backdrop to it and the aim of certain subsections particularly in the area of fundemental rights was to exclude women from politics.

sparkling sea

MagicSean wrote: »

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?

Your the first person I've ever heard suggest, gender quotas should be enshrined in the Constitution. But any sociology book relating to contempary Ireland will give you a wealth of information as to why positive action is needed in relation to womens participation in politics at governmental level.

sparkling sea

MagicSean wrote: »

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?

Again have you read it? Do you understand the history behind it? Your answers suggest you don't.

Your commenting on something you appear to know very little about; I have given examples that are widely accepted as discriminatory against women. Bunreacht na hEireann is taken to be a gender bais Constitution, partly but not only because of the time it was written. In the main, the gender makeup of all but a few senior office holders back up ever single thing I say. Do you understand that - I don't know?

sparkling sea

jackofalltrades wrote: »

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

No surprised by that, it's kind of obvious from your cherry picked reply.

sparkling sea

OP again congratulations.

I would imagine at the very least both subsections of Art.41 are being considered for amendment, its has been long talked about

There is a wealth of information on this topic, a shed load of independent scientific studies, a dearth of sociologicaly information on the impact this has in society.

People on this site have opinions, as do I - some agree and some differ.

I am sure you will look at the information youself and come to your own opinion on this issue. The best of luck with it.

sparkling sea

Zombrex wrote: »

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.

Perhaps thats why the groups you mentioned are not really represented in politics and are constantly lobbying for change. We do not have an Oireachtas that is representative of our society, this despite the fact that we claim to be a representative democracy. Life in politics limits the knowledge of the majority of politicans who are middle aged or older, well heeled , white male politicans; this means we (both men and women) can’ never ever be represented properly.

Women are not a segment of society, they are part of a set and all other groups are subsets of the main set. A person has to be a man or women to be part of a minority groups The arguement that left handed people, gay people, etc are as entitled to quotas as women is a nonsense thats not to say they should be excluded – but its as ridiculous as saying we should turn the present system on its head and have in and around 88% women and 12 % men – the preception among men would be that they are being undervalued if such a thing happened and that would be true

We've tried your suggestions for the past 40 years, they haven't worked and thats why quotas are being called for. Change has to start somewhere, it makes sense that given our history, we should now go with gender qoutas – its just a pity it ever had to come to this, but nothing else has worked here.
I would hope it would be just a short term measure maybe for 20 years unlike the gender bais that has existed for men since 1937 when the Constitution was written. And for hundreds of years before that - change is difficult, if it was easy it would have happened already.

This info may be interest to you "If left to its own devices, it will take approximately 370 years for Ireland to reach a 50:50 gender balance in politics. If passed, this gender quota legislation will help to shock the system and ensure that more women can overcome the highly gendered, localistic barriers they face. Once women are on the ballot, it will be up to voters to decide." (Information taken from a study by among others, Fiona Buckley is a lecturer in the Department of Government, University College Cork.)

MagicSean

Zombrex wrote: »

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

The section defines nothing. Nor does it require anything of a woman. It simply grants the right to a woman to contribute to the home without the financial need to work elsewhere.

sparkling sea wrote: »

You need to read the Constitution and look at its aspirations.

It was written in a time of gender inequality, that is the backdrop to it and the aim of certain subsections particularly in the area of fundemental rights was to exclude women from politics.

You've made your speeches already. Can you show these sections which attack the fundamental rights of women or attempt to exclude them from politics.

sparkling sea wrote: »

Your the first person I've ever heard suggest, gender quotas should be enshrined in the Constitution. But any sociology book relating to contempary Ireland will give you a wealth of information as to why positive action is needed in relation to womens participation in politics at governmental level.

Perhaps you should read the thread then. This is about constitutional reform, not gender quotas.

sparkling sea wrote: »

Again have you read it? Do you understand the history behind it? Your answers suggest you don't.

Your commenting on something you appear to know very little about; I have given examples that are widely accepted as discriminatory against women. Bunreacht na hEireann is taken to be a gender bais Constitution, partly but not only because of the time it was written. In the main, the gender makeup of all but a few senior office holders back up ever single thing I say. Do you understand that - I don't know?

How ridiculously condescending. And still you haven't given a single example or anything to back up what you say. "widely accepted" is not sufficient as supporting your opinion.

sparkling sea

MagicSean wrote: »

The section defines nothing. Nor does it require anything of a woman. It simply grants the right to a woman to contribute to the home without the financial need to work elsewhere.



You've made your speeches already. Can you show these sections which attack the fundamental rights of women or attempt to exclude them from politics.



Perhaps you should read the thread then. This is about constitutional reform, not gender quotas.



How ridiculously condescending. And still you haven't given a single example or anything to back up what you say. "widely accepted" is not sufficient as supporting your opinion.

You won't find a historian or anyone who has studied this who agrees with your analysis but there you go.

Yep the OP felt that the C was gender neutral, constitutional reform encompasses amending the C. I've read the thread.

I have shown you to examples in Art 41, you have rejected these. The makeup of our political representative also confirm this , you disagree even though its generally accepted. You are entitled to your opinion, its pointless for me to discuss this any further with you, we'll just keep going round in the same very small circle.

jackofalltrades

sparkling sea wrote: »

No surprised by that, it's kind of obvious from your cherry picked reply.

Would you care to answer any of the questions that I raised in reply to your post?

If passed, this gender quota legislation will help to shock the system and ensure that more women can overcome the highly gendered, localistic barriers they face. If passed, this gender quota legislation will help to shock the system and ensure that more women can overcome the highly gendered, localistic barriers they face.

What are these highly gendered barriers?

MagicSean

sparkling sea wrote: »

You won't find a historian or anyone who has studied this who agrees with your analysis but there you go.

Yep the OP felt that the C was gender neutral, constitutional reform encompasses amending the C. I've read the thread.

I have shown you to examples in Art 41, you have rejected these. The makeup of our political representative also confirm this , you disagree even though its generally accepted. You are entitled to your opinion, its pointless for me to discuss this any further with you, we'll just keep going round in the same very small circle.

You cited 1 example of Art 41 and I explained how it does not affect women negatively. Can you show me one thing at all that Article 41 has brought about that has a negative effect on women?

All I'm asking is for you to explain or back up any of your claims. You have not done this. I have a feeling that you are probably the same poster who engaged in the same behaviour a while back in a thread specifically about gender neutrality. Lots of claims and statements but no one iota of explanation or proof.

Zombrex

sparkling sea wrote: »

Perhaps thats why the groups you mentioned are not really represented in politics and are constantly lobbying for change. We do not have an Oireachtas that is representative of our society, this despite the fact that we claim to be a representative democracy.

The goal of a representative democracy is not to have an Oireachtas that is a representation of our society but to have an Oireachtas that represents our society.

The State does not tell the people who they must vote for.

sparkling sea wrote: »

We've tried your suggestions for the past 40 years, they haven't worked and thats why quotas are being called for. Change has to start somewhere, it makes sense that given our history, we should now go with gender qoutas

If there are limits in the way of women entering politics then you remove them. But one does not throw away democracy because one feels it does not work in their favour.

Annasopra

jackofalltrades wrote: »

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.


And what are these barriers?
I really don't see why you are bringing race into this discussion.


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

Where did you get the figures of 4% of labour party members are women?

jackofalltrades

Double checked it, it's actually 37%.

sparkling sea

Zombrex wrote: »

If there are limits in the way of women entering politics then you remove them. But one does not throw away democracy because one feels it does not work in their favour.

The more diverse the Oireachtas the more represents all sectors of society

There has to be political will to remove them, why put the effort into change when the change will directly affect your chances of election. Lip service is all that is paid to this issue and thats the way it will stay unless gender quotas are introduced, at least for a limited amount of time

You call a long established gender bais in favour of men democratic, I don't

Most of all you are, for what ever reason, ignoring all the research in this area

sparkling sea

MagicSean wrote: »

You cited 1 example of Art 41 and I explained how it does not affect women negatively. Can you show me one thing at all that Article 41 has brought about that has a negative effect on women?

All I'm asking is for you to explain or back up any of your claims. You have not done this. I have a feeling that you are probably the same poster who engaged in the same behaviour a while back in a thread specifically about gender neutrality. Lots of claims and statements but no one iota of explanation or proof.

I citied 2 examples, both are subsections of Art 41. The claims aren't mine, they are the accepted minimum standard.

Your talking 1 x tables, I'm talking fractions - some thing are just the basics when your discussing the Constitution and gender discrimination with in our C's fundemental rights - your literally arguing black is white. I just can't be bothered.

You should at the very least know the basics if you are going to argue the point.

sparkling sea

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Double checked it, it's actually 37%.

4% to 37% !!

This again taken from Fiona Buckly et al

Contrary to what some believe, women are present in the local echelons of political parties, accounting for 42 per cent of the membership of Fine Gael, 37 per cent of Labour, 34 per cent of Fianna Fáil and 25 per cent of Sinn Féin. These figures illustrate that women are less likely than men to rise up from the membership ranks to the ballot paper. The gender gap is particularly large for Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, who each ran 15 per cent female candidates in the 2011 election.

And an example of barriers - again from the same article.

"Politics is not a level-playing pitch. Research has identified gendered barriers, such as childcare, that prevent fair competition for political office. The CSO 2010 Women and Men in Ireland Report found that half a million women in 2010 were looking after home/family compared with only 7500 men. The same report showed that employment rates amongst men and women were more or less the same before having children. However 80.2 per cent of men whose youngest child is 3 or under are in employment. The corresponding figure for women is 56 per cent."

Women are much more likely to care for children, people with are ill, and the elderly. Women are much more likely to care for the vunerable and not have the time to promote themselves. This is not because men are bad, it just because thats the way it has always been.
Neither men or women have benefited from this. All issues in society that need to addressed are not because they don't even make it on to the politcal agenda.

Gender quotas may and hopefully will, go some way to addressing this but we need cultural change also

oscarBravo

At the risk of being repetitive, this has turned into a discussion on the merits or otherwise of gender quotas, when the question at hand is whether there should be gender quotas in the constitution.

As I've already argued, it's no place for them. If it's possible that quotas are a good idea, then write them into legislation. Then, if they turn out (for whatever reason) to be a bad idea, repeal the legislation.

The constitution forms a foundation upon which laws are built. Putting legislation into the constitution is like putting your plumbing and wiring into the foundation of your house: it it turns out you've made a mistake, it's a hell of a lot harder to get them out again.

Amirani

sparkling sea wrote: »

4% to 37% !!

This again taken from Fiona Buckly et al

Contrary to what some believe, women are present in the local echelons of political parties, accounting for 42 per cent of the membership of Fine Gael, 37 per cent of Labour, 34 per cent of Fianna Fáil and 25 per cent of Sinn Féin. These figures illustrate that women are less likely than men to rise up from the membership ranks to the ballot paper. The gender gap is particularly large for Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, who each ran 15 per cent female candidates in the 2011 election.

In order to make an argument like that you'd need to examine female memberships rates at grass roots over a historical time frame. If 10 years ago 90% of party members were male, it's not really much of a surprise if it's that personnel that's risen to the level of general election candidate. Anything else would be fast-tracking on a discriminatory basis.

Obviously these figures are plucked from thin air but it's not as simple as just looking at numbers from a fixed point in time. No solid conclusions can be based on that.

Zombrex

sparkling sea wrote: »

The more diverse the Oireachtas the more represents all sectors of society

And?

Again the goal of the Oireachtas is not to be a representation of society. If the democratic will of the people was to only elect men between 45 and 50 from Longford, that would be what the Oireachtas should look like.

You are working under the assumption that people will vote for people exactly like them, and if they don't something has gone wrong.

So a black woman from Cork should vote for another black woman from Cork and if she didn't well then something is gone wrong and we should make sure than next time she can only vote for another black woman from Cork, because well we know what she really wants.

The State does not dictate to the people who they should be voting for.

sparkling sea wrote: »

Lip service is all that is paid to this issue and thats the way it will stay unless gender quotas are introduced, at least for a limited amount of time

Are women barred from voting? Are woman unable to stand for election? Are women unable to form political parties?

Gender quotas is basically just saying people, particularly women, are voting wrong, we need to tell them how they should be voting for their own good.

What next, burkas to protect their dignity.

sparkling sea wrote: »

You call a long established gender bais in favour of men democratic, I don't

Then you don't understand what democracy is (which is highly likely if you are pushing quotas)

Can you name an election since 1922 where the democratic will of the people was illegally blocked in order to instill an unelected person?

sparkling sea wrote: »

Most of all you are, for what ever reason, ignoring all the research in this area

If you can show me the research that says this isn't the State dictating who can stand for election and who the country can or cannot vote for, I'm all ears.

Zombrex

oscarBravo wrote: »

The constitution forms a foundation upon which laws are built. Putting legislation into the constitution is like putting your plumbing and wiring into the foundation of your house: it it turns out you've made a mistake, it's a hell of a lot harder to get them out again.

Could quotas even go ahead without a referendum though?

Zombrex

Apologies if it has been quoted before, but here is an excellent speech by Labour TD Joanna Tuffy dismantling the claims that quotas are the answer and work

http://www.labour.ie/joannatuffy/blogarchive/2012/03/22/transcript-of-my-speech-in-the-dail-today-where-i-object-to-gender-quota-legislation/

Not that it particularly matters, even if they did work they would be undemocratic. Dictatorship works as well, but there is a reason we don't have one of them.

Annasopra

oscarBravo wrote: »

At the risk of being repetitive, this has turned into a discussion on the merits or otherwise of gender quotas, when the question at hand is whether there should be gender quotas in the constitution.

Actually the question is not necessarily about gender quotas at all

The convention was mandated to look at

(vi) amending the clause on the role of women in the home and encouraging greater participation of women in public life;

(vii) increasing the participation of women in politics;

Qoutas may be one suggestion for both but not necessarily the only proposal or suggestion

Annasopra

Zombrex wrote: »

Could quotas even go ahead without a referendum though?

Candidate quotas are already law since July 2012

MagicSean

sparkling sea wrote: »

I citied 2 examples, both are subsections of Art 41. The claims aren't mine, they are the accepted minimum standard.

Your talking 1 x tables, I'm talking fractions - some thing are just the basics when your discussing the Constitution and gender discrimination with in our C's fundemental rights - your literally arguing black is white. I just can't be bothered.

You should at the very least know the basics if you are going to argue the point.

Citing an article is neither proof nor argument. You need to explain how it suuports your claim. If so many scholars and historians back you up then why can'y you cite one of them? If you can't be bothered explaining or backing up anything you say you should stop posting.

How about if I make the question easier? Give me one example from law where the Article 41 of the Constitution has resulted in a discriminatory law.

mango salsa wrote: »

Candidate quotas are already law since July 2012

Are they a legal requirement or just a basis for deciding which parties get funding?

Annasopra

MagicSean wrote: »

Are they a legal requirement or just a basis for deciding which parties get funding?

A legal requirement for parties to receive state funding

Zombrex

mango salsa wrote: »

Candidate quotas are already law since July 2012

As has been pointed out, that is in relation to which parties qualify for State funding. Which I don't agree with either, but is not as bad, nor unconstitutional, as electoral quotas

RangeR

The Constitutional Convention are meeting to discuss this issue at the end of next week. I'm going to try find a free hour or two to go through this thread; to combine the votes and opinions. When done [hopefully in the next few days], I'll post the summary here.

If you want to get your opinion across and counted, please do so before Friday 15th February 2013.

Thank you to everyone who discussed so far, for taking to time out to do so.

Annasopra

RangeR wrote: »

The Constitutional Convention are meeting to discuss this issue at the end of next week. I'm going to try find a free hour or two to go through this thread; to combine the votes and opinions. When done [hopefully in the next few days], I'll post the summary here.

If you want to get your opinion across and counted, please do so before Friday 15th February 2013.

Thank you to everyone who discussed so far, for taking to time out to do so.

Just to point out this discussion has focused around the advantages/disadvantages of gender quotas. There has been almost no discussion on gender quotas in the constitution.

There has been little or no discussion on broader issues around how the consitution could be used in terms of:

encouraging greater participation of women in public life;

(vii) increasing the participation of women in politics;

I also think (and I could be wrong) that there have been no female participants in this discussion.

Zulu

I think it stands to reason that if a person is against discrimination (ie: quotas), then they are against having them in the constitution. That's fairly obvious.

I guess the question then becomes: those who believe that quotas are a good idea, do they also believe that quotas should be written into the constitution?

RangeR

mango salsa wrote: »

Just to point out this discussion has focused around the advantages/disadvantages of gender quotas. There has been almost no discussion on gender quotas in the constitution.

There has been little or no discussion on broader issues around how the consitution could be used in terms of:

encouraging greater participation of women in public life;

(vii) increasing the participation of women in politics;

I also think (and I could be wrong) that there have been no female participants in this discussion.

Zulu wrote: »

I think it stands to reason that if a person is against discrimination (ie: quotas), then they are against having them in the constitution. That's fairly obvious.

I guess the question then becomes: those who believe that quotas are a good idea, do they also believe that quotas should be written into the constitution?

Fair points. My personal opinion, which I've aired already, is that this issue has no place in our Good Book. My opinion is that there shouldn't even be a law introduced to implement gender quotas. It's just bad thinking and the start of a slippery slope.

I believe that there should be incentives to parties to bring parity to gender equality [If that's even needed*]. I also believe that this is a fundamental aspect that this is part of a wider issue of electoral reform, that we will be discussing in May/June.

* I'm torn on this. Part of me thinks that there are few women in politics because they just don't put themselves forward. The fewer nominees, the fewer that can be elected. However, I'm [anecdotally] aware that there are certain barriers that are just insurmountable to women. I would like to get clarity on what those barriers are and see if they can be taken down.

Summary : I just don't see this as a Constitutional issue and, this topic in particular, is a bull**** one by Government because it's been in the public eye for some time.

Fromthetrees

There are less women in politics because of the role they play in society as being the primary caregiver for children.

Women are drawn more into public sector jobs such as nursing and teaching. Maximum maternity leave, job security, guaranteed holidays, maximum sick pay and far less chance of getting overlooked for promotion are all conducive to raising a family.

For more women to enter into politics and also the upper echelons of management, law, medicine and other professions that need an incredible amount of time and dedication to succeed in then we have to redefine the role of women that are mothers, and that means redefining the role of men that are fathers in our society too.

We can't change the biological reasons of why we are where we are but we can change the societal norms, pressures and expectations placed upon women. Tax subsidies and grants for businesses to provide creche facilities would help a lot, splitting of maternity and paternity leave along a more egalitarian line, placing more emphasis on the concept of shared parenting duties and there are many more ways we can help foster this change.

When we have a law system that grants no rights whatsoever to an unmarried father and places children in the sole care and responsibility of the unmarried mother then you can start to see the bigger picture of where we stand as a nation on how we view women and men regarding children. How a single mother could ever become a politician in this country is beyond me whereas a single father would have a much clearer road (that's assuming both parents of the child are alive but living separately).

Women have been handed the children and the men have been sent out to work to earn money is the way we can define the first 100 years of our states existence. We have an older generation of Irish women who were extremely constrained by the marriage ban which we are still suffering the hangover from today. Ireland was an extremely Catholic country to the extent that we locked 'unwanted' women up in the Magdalene Laundries as late as the 90's. With the churches iron grip released from the throat of the country we need to move on and away from our 'traditional' family roles and pave the way for a shared and equal standing among the sexes.

MagicSean

Fromthetrees wrote: »

There are less women in politics because of the role they play in society as being the primary caregiver for children.

Women are drawn more into public sector jobs such as nursing and teaching. Maximum maternity leave, job security, guaranteed holidays, maximum sick pay and far less chance of getting overlooked for promotion are all conducive to raising a family.

For more women to enter into politics and also the upper echelons of management, law, medicine and other professions that need an incredible amount of time and dedication to succeed in then we have to redefine the role of women that are mothers, and that means redefining the role of men that are fathers in our society too.

We can't change the biological reasons of why we are where we are but we can change the societal norms, pressures and expectations placed upon women. Tax subsidies and grants for businesses to provide creche facilities would help a lot, splitting of maternity and paternity leave along a more egalitarian line, placing more emphasis on the concept of shared parenting duties and there are many more ways we can help foster this change.

When we have a law system that grants no rights whatsoever to an unmarried father and places children in the sole care and responsibility of the unmarried mother then you can start to see the bigger picture of where we stand as a nation on how we view women and men regarding children. How a single mother could ever become a politician in this country is beyond me whereas a single father would have a much clearer road (that's assuming both parents of the child are alive but living separately).

Women have been handed the children and the men have been sent out to work to earn money is the way we can define the first 100 years of our states existence. We have an older generation of Irish women who were extremely constrained by the marriage ban which we are still suffering the hangover from today. Ireland was an extremely Catholic country to the extent that we locked 'unwanted' women up in the Magdalene Laundries as late as the 90's. With the churches iron grip released from the throat of the country we need to move on and away from our 'traditional' family roles and pave the way for a shared and equal standing among the sexes.

You can't redeine the role of women without doing the same for men. Maternity leave should be mostly interchangeable between parents. Custody rights should be equal. Things like this will allow more men to move into the role currently dominated by women.

Annasopra

Fromthetrees wrote: »

There are less women in politics because of the role they play in society as being the primary caregiver for children.

I don't agree that childcare is the main reason for less women in politics at all. It's much more complex than that.

Women for election have written a good submission to the convention and put forward several reasons based on research

https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?aid=e46cfd15-5d74-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4

Why are there so few women in Irish politics?
Research classfies the reasons for women’s under-representation in politics as the ‘5 Cs’:

Confidence: women are less likely to put themselves forward as candidates
Cash: women have less access to resources than men
Candidate selection procedures: how political parties select candidates has not traditionally favoured women
Culture: Irish political culture is masculine, refecting the make-up of politics to date
Childcare: women are more likely to have this responsibility

They have put forward some good suggestions for the convention to consider

What can the Constitutional Convention do?

The Constitutional Convention has the power to champion the issue of women in political life, to raise awareness about this problem and make concrete recommendations to Government to address it.

In this role, each member of the Convention has the chance to consider what parts of our Constitution might discourage women’s participation in politics and how our nation’s guiding document should change to today’s values and aspirations.

In undertaking this task, Women for Election asks you to consider the following:

The Taoiseach could be a ‘she’

Our Constitution states what we, as a country, deem important; its words communicate our values. Now, all references to the President, the Taoiseach, the Tanaiste, TDs and Senators within the Constitution are male only (“he”, “him” and “his”). The only “her” is in Article 41 (women in the home).

Adding ‘she’ to these roles is a simple change in language would make a world of difference.

It would demonstrate Ireland’s determination to seek balance in our politics, right up to the highest o#ce.

Making a statement will make a difference

The ‘4 Ps’ (outlined above) prove how having more women in elected office benefits all of us, yet our Constitution does nothing to actively encourage women’s political participation. In fact, through its use of language, it excludes women.

We have an opportunity to change this, by including a strong statement to encourage women’s political participation. We call on the Convention to consider the inclusion of a new sub-section in the Constitution,
stating that:

“The State acknowledges that true democracy is inclusive of all its citizens. The State shall endeavour, by appropriate means, to promote equality in politics.”

This simple statement, backed up by inclusive language, would send a positive message to all women that our voices are encouraged, sought out and valued in our country’s political system. That reality would benefit all of us.

Fromthetrees

Why are there so few women in Irish politics?
Research classfies the reasons for women’s under-representation in politics as the ‘5 Cs’:

Confidence: women are less likely to put themselves forward as candidates

I think confidence is a rather silly point for themt to make, I personally wouldn't have the confidence to enter into politics, so what?

Cash: women have less access to resources than men

For a number of reasons this is true but they all lead back to children.
1.Women are drawn more to jobs such as nursing and teaching which are 'safe' jobs but in the long term have less chance to earn bigger money in. Women who have children are far more risk averse than men who have children.
2.Women are also far more likely to be the parent that gives up her career prospects when it comes to having children.
3.Women who have children earn less than men who have children yet women who don't have children earn more than men who don't have children. Go figure.

Candidate selection procedures: how political parties select candidates has not traditionally favoured women

This is because of how women have been treated since this states inception relating to the care of children.

Culture: Irish political culture is masculine, refecting the make-up of politics to date

This is because of how women have been treated since this states inception relating to the care of children.


I like the idea of changing the wording of the constitution to be gender neutral but that's all it is, it's merely changing a word.

We need a massive shift in attitude towards how we view parenting in this country. Most if not all of these issues lead back to the care of children and how we view it. If everything relating to children was gender neutral we would be a better country.

To me, please point out if there are other ways, to get more women into politics you can either have an extremely undemocratic law enforcing gender quotas or we can have actual equality in the area of child care.

sparkling sea

A good decision - well done

Annasopra

sparkling sea wrote: »

A good decision - well done

what was a good decision?

P_1

Yes, what was decided?

RangeR

P_1 wrote: »

Yes, what was decided?

To encourage but not enshrine.

Iwasfrozen

RangeR wrote: »

To encourage but not enshrine.

So anything legislative?

RangeR

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So anything legislative?

Honestly, I can't remember. I'm down with a bug at the moment and my head is in a mess.

I will say, that the irony wasn't lost on our small table by being asked the remove gender from one section [Mothers in the home] and adding it in another section [Women in politics].

I also think that this was a bull**** excersize [women in politics]. Why were we asked to discuss that over abortion? Also, considering that "women in politics" could have been included with the actual "Electoral Reform" that we are discussing in May/June [TWO months], I saw this as point scoring on behalf of Government. "Look at us, we're trying to lower the barrier of entry to women in politics". Did you know that FF and FG have the lowest percentage of women in their respective groups?

If FG were serious, about this, they wouldn't have to wait until the people spoke. Just ****ing do it. Less talking, more doing!!

RangeR

Draft report made available to the 100 this morning. It is hoped that this is agreed and wrapped up by end of next week.

Draft attached.