Ladies and gentlemen, the first ridiculous consequence of gender quotas

KomradeBishop

Daith wrote: »

So why not to the same in Dublin Bay North? They're picking what areas to run only women in.

They'll get their gender quota in calculated areas that they don't believe they'll win.

I'm talking specifically about the candidate selection discussed in the OP, not making a general statement about the overall candidate selection.

Pat Mustard

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Storm in a teacup.

Party HQs (and not just Fianna Fail's) have frequently overruled local organisations on choice and number of candidates. The only difference this time is that the gender quota is part of the equation.

FF can of course ignore the quota and field an entire slate of men if they want to, but won't get as much public funding.

Quota is only 30 percent. I'd find it hard to have sympathy for any party who can't manage to find that number of female candidates.

I couldn't entirely agree with that.

It's true that the parties can nominate whichever candidates that they wish.

However, if funding for political parties depends upon the implementation of gender quotas, then I think that there are serious problems, in relation to interference with the democratic system and in relation to actually dealing with the issue of too few women in politics.

If those in power were serious about getting more women involved in politics and if they wanted proper candidates to run rather than those parachuted in on the basis of gender, wouldn't they be better off looking at removing the barriers to entry to the job, and introducing systems such as attendance and voting by electronic means, appropriate childcare etc? Surely those kinds of measures would help address the imbalance of male/female representation in the Dail. And that would be representation on the basis of ability, not gender.

But instead we are presented with gender quotas which must be fulfilled in order to get political funding. The result is extra female candidates running in constituencies where FF are not likely to succeed.

Political funding dependent on gender quotas in this instance is an indirect attempt to subvert the democratic system by encouraging nomination of candidates on the basis of gender instead of ability.

Religious quotas or quotas based on ethnic extraction wouldn't be a far cry from this and would make just as little sense.

zeffabelli

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Hmm? What's it got to do with egalitarianism? This is giving advantage to the women involved (to the point of giving them a monopoly on the current selection), and disadvantaging (to the point of excluding) the guys.

Egalitarianism is a response with social or economic engineering to perceived in qualities.

The perception is not enough women in politics.... the pursuit is equality but the result is unfair and undemocratic. It's government interfering in the voting process.

Daith

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I'm talking specifically about the candidate selection discussed in the OP, not making a general statement about the overall candidate selection.

I'm talking about FF as a whole. The wider picture is important to consider here.

I don't actually agree with the quotas myself but there's far more thought put into it from FF here.

Chips Lovell

Satan is Real wrote: »

Lol so much for equality. Welcome to the 21st century where get penalized just for being a man.

Eh, there's gender quotas for men too.

Pat Mustard

expectationlost wrote: »

its not EU funding it Irish state funding, if they don't get 30% of either gender the funding is cut by 50%

Do you have a link for this? I'm curious to see the details and I haven't found them yet.

Chips Lovell

Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Act 2012
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/act/36/enacted/en/print.html

zeffabelli

Potatoeman wrote: »

Egalitarians would for equal opportunity not equality of result. Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

But their argument is that you need to use positive discrimination in order to create equal opporunity, because the opportunity is not equal in the first place, hence the social and economic engineering.

So you know... you have to tell colleges who they can admit, you have to tell employers who they can hire and you have to tell voters who they can vote for.

That is what egalitarianism is. It may may equal but it sure as **** aint fair.

KomradeBishop

zeffabelli wrote: »

Egalitarianism is a response with social or economic engineering to perceived in qualities.

The perception is not enough women in politics.... the pursuit is equality but the result is unfair and undemocratic. It's government interfering in the voting process.

The latter isn't egalitarianism/equality. As another poster said, egalitarianism isn't really about equality of outcome.

Daith

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Do you have a link for this? I'm curious to see the details and I haven't found them yet.

I think this is it?

[2012.] [ Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) No. 36.]
Act 2012.

Payments calculated in accordance with this
Part shall be reduced by 50 per cent, unless at
least 30 per cent of the candidates whose candidatures
were authenticated by the qualified
party at the preceding general election were
women and at least 30 per cent were men

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/act/36/enacted/en/pdf


So we actually have gender quotas for men...just easier to achieve

KomradeBishop

Daith wrote: »

I'm talking about FF as a whole. The wider picture is important to consider here.

I don't actually agree with the quotas myself but there's far more thought put into it from FF here.

Then you're talking about something different to me, and your replies don't make sense as a response to what I've said - as I'm talking specifically about the case in the OP.

KomradeBishop

zeffabelli wrote: »

But their argument is that you need to use positive discrimination in order to create equal opporunity, because the opportunity is not equal in the first place, hence the social and economic engineering.

So you know... you have to tell colleges who they can admit, you have to tell employers who they can hire and you have to tell voters who they can vote for.

That is what egalitarianism is. It may may equal but it sure as **** aint fair.

No the positive discrimination in this case, pushes towards equality of outcome, not opportunity.

zeffabelli

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No the positive discrimination in this case, pushes towards equality of outcome, not opportunity.

Thats what positive discrimination and quotas are. This is what egalitarianism is.

Its social/economic engineering, people just blather on mindlessly promoting it because they want paternity leave but have no idea what they are talking about because they never bothered to pick up a moron's guide to political theory....and well here we are.....

ArmaniJeanss

Its hardly undemocratic, the candidate is still free to stand as an independent with an identical set of policies.

Daith

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Then you're talking about something different to me, and your replies don't make sense as a response to what I've said - as I'm talking specifically about the case in the OP.

Yes two cases of FF people not being selected to run for General Election because of gender quotas?

My point is they're not being discriminated against because they're men. They're being discriminated against because the party doesn't think they'll win the bloody seat.

KomradeBishop

zeffabelli wrote: »

Thats what positive discrimination and quotas are. This is what egalitarianism is.

Its social/economic engineering, people just blather on mindlessly promoting it because they want paternity leave but have no idea what they are talking about because they never bothered to pick up a moron's guide to political theory....and well here we are.....

No it isn't - egalitarians are mostly about equality of opportunity, not outcome:

By the same token, most egalitarians presently do not advocate an equality of outcome, but different kinds of equality of opportunity...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/

Right-leaning Libertarian publications try to straw-man egalitarians like this all the time, to smear them and related social causes (attacking egalitarianism, is a great covert way of reviving a lot of socially conservative views, under the 'socially liberal' banner of Libertarianism), because it's politically useful for them to spread disinformation like that.

Pick up the right book on political theory, and ditch discreditable sources, that cause you to take on misinformation

Potatoeman

zeffabelli wrote: »

Thats what positive discrimination and quotas are. This is what egalitarianism is.

Its social/economic engineering, people just blather on mindlessly promoting it because they want paternity leave but have no idea what they are talking about because they never bothered to pick up a moron's guide to political theory....and well here we are.....

This was being pushed for by feminist groups not egalitarians. That's why it's soley for the benefit of women. Paternity leave for men is a benefit for men that does not disadvantage women. If men had it too then women would be less impacted by taking it and not seen as an extra expense compared to men.

KomradeBishop

Daith wrote: »

Yes two cases of FF people not being selected to run for General Election because of gender quotas?

My point is they're not being discriminated against because they're men. They're being discriminated against because the party doesn't think they'll win the bloody seat.

The OP quote explicitly states - from the party itself - that they are being discriminated against because they are men.

Daith

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The OP quote explicitly states - from the party itself - that they are being discriminated against because they are men.

Yes because they're in a weak area and FF don't expect to win regardless of who they put on the bloody ballot.

In the case of an area where they expect a male person to win they'll add them to the ticket such in the case of Sean Haughey who was added despite losing the nomination against a women.

If you just want to take these isolated cases and not look at the bigger picture it's not looking at it correctly.

zeffabelli

Potatoeman wrote: »

This was being pushed for by feminist groups not egalitarians. That's why it's soley for the benefit of women. Paternity leave for men is a benefit for men that does not disadvantage women. If men had it too then women would be less impacted by taking it and not seen as an extra expense compared to men.

It disadvantages employers and co workers.

zeffabelli

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No it isn't - egalitarians are mostly about equality of opportunity, not outcome:

By the same token, most egalitarians presently do not advocate an equality of outcome, but different kinds of equality of opportunity...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/

Right-leaning Libertarian publications try to straw-man egalitarians like this all the time, to smear them and related social causes (attacking egalitarianism, is a great covert way of reviving a lot of socially conservative views, under the 'socially liberal' banner of Libertarianism), because it's politically useful for them to spread disinformation like that.

Pick up the right book on political theory, and ditch discreditable sources, that cause you to take on misinformation

Sorry but your wrong about that. When you impose quotas on education and employers, and voting booths, that is an imposition of outcome.

Potatoeman

zeffabelli wrote: »

It disadvantages employers and co workers.

It means employers are less likely to not hire a woman incase she gets pregnant. How does it disadvantage workers anymore than a woman getting maternity leave?

Carlos Orange

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Its hardly undemocratic, the candidate is still free to stand as an independent with an identical set of policies.

It you believe that then why force parties to include female candidates?

ArmaniJeanss

psinno wrote: »

It you believe that then why force parties to include female candidates?

Are they forced or is a funding issue?

hatrickpatrick

zeffabelli wrote: »

All the egalitarians should be happy.

Dumb but happy.

I'm not so sure, most egalitarians believe in equality of opportunity rather than outcome. The point there being that no demographic attributes (other than perhaps age, and only if for legitimate and relevant reasons) should preclude somebody from competing for a position.

What's happened here is that the competition itself has been distorted, so that the outcome is prejudiced before the result has been decided. This, in my view, is where one crosses the line from egalitarianism to demographic fascism.

hatrickpatrick

Ignatius in bloom wrote: »

Not sure the whole merit thing works as for the rest? not to many stunners of either gender walking around government buildings.

Ironically enough, I regard a few of the women I cited in my OP as some of the best TDs we have. Catherine Murphy has been an absolute credit to what democracy is supposed to be about, and Clare Daly along with Ming and Mick has succeeded in bringing extremely serious scandals involving our justice system to the forefront of the political agenda.

I fully expect all of those TDs to get seats in the next Dail because they have done such a good job of representing the public's interests, unlike so many others (male and female).

That's why I find this quota rubbish so ridiculous. As well as being sexist against men (which is something we're not supposed to care about) it also devalues the achievements of any women who get chosen just because of this. If I was the woman cited in the article I've linked to in my OP, I'd personally be very uncomfortable knowing that I'd got the nomination on a technicality despite my opponent probably being the public's preferred choice. It would leave a bitter taste in my mouth - I've been in similar positions before, albeit on low level and silly social and personal issues, of being the less preferred, but more convenient person for a role. It doesn't feel good, at all.

zeffabelli

Potatoeman wrote: »

It means employers are less likely to not hire a woman incase she gets pregnant. How does it disadvantage workers anymore than a woman getting maternity leave?

BEcause you have twice as many people having time off....that costs money and your co workers get landed with your workload.

ITs not going to encourage employers into hiring a woman, because the woman no matter what, will need time off for physical recovery. There is no way around that.

KomradeBishop

zeffabelli wrote: »

Sorry but your wrong about that. When you impose quotas on education and employers, and voting booths, that is an imposition of outcome.

We're talking about what is and isn't egalitarianism though - quotas are not egalitarianism.

The idea that quota's = egalitarianism, is exactly the kind of propaganda/smearing put out by right-leaning Libertarian publications, that I described previously.

That's why they're bad to read, there is so much disinformation, that no individual can hope to fact-check it all, so people just end up getting fooled into taking on misinformation; bad for intellectual health.

zeffabelli

KomradeBishop wrote: »

We're talking about what is and isn't egalitarianism though - quotas are not egalitarianism.

The idea that quota's = egalitarianism, is exactly the kind of propaganda/smearing put out by right-leaning Libertarian publications, that I described previously.

That's why they're bad to read, there is so much disinformation, that no individual can hope to fact-check it all, so people just end up getting fooled into taking on misinformation; bad for intellectual health.

The LIbertarian publications are right, that's why. Certainly about egalitarianism.

meeeeh

If a party wants an image of old men that screwed up the economy then yes why to interfere. Btw FG added Richard Bruton after he lost the vote.

Btw quotas aren't some crazy invention of irish feminists. They worked well internationally and helped more women get in in the first place. But when the system is set up, you actually don't need quotas to maintain female representation.

Potatoeman

zeffabelli wrote: »

BEcause you have twice as many people having time off....that costs money and your co workers get landed with your workload.

ITs not going to encourage employers into hiring a woman, because the woman no matter what, will need time off for physical recovery. There is no way around that.

Yes but it means it's not just female workloads. So it's less likely to be a disadvantage for women as its a cost for both sexes.

Chips Lovell

meeeeh wrote: »

Btw quotas aren't some crazy invention of irish feminists. They worked well internationally and helped more women get in in the first place. But when the system is set up, you actually don't need quotas to maintain female representation.

Worth stressing.

Plenty of other countries have them and the sky hasn't fallen down.

KomradeBishop

zeffabelli wrote: »

The LIbertarian publications are right, that's why. Certainly about egalitarianism.

No, you've failed to show that; you've just asserted quota's = egalitarianism, and they are not, and solid links have shown you that egalitarianism is about equality of opportunity (i.e. not quotas) rather than outcome (i.e. quotas).

Again: Quota's are not Egalitarian.

The publications are putting out propaganda/disinformation to fool/bias people against a wide range of social causes - they have a very long history of doing this, and have a long history of publishing easily proven lies.

There's no excuse for repeating disinformation, once it's been pointed out how it's wrong.

osarusan

Agree with a lot of OP, but I don't think it is anti-democratic (at least, not in a new way) - and it isn't the first time it has happened either.

Carlos Orange

meeeeh wrote: »

Btw quotas aren't some crazy invention of irish feminists. They worked well internationally and helped more women get in in the first place. But when the system is set up, you actually don't need quotas to maintain female representation.

They clearly discriminate against men entering politics on the basis of their gender. Conceptually they aren't any different than mandating only women and currently elected TD can stand for election.

meeeeh

psinno wrote: »

They clearly discriminate against men entering politics on the basis of their gender.

How so? If party puts forward 30 percent women, there will still be twice as many men on ticket. Also party is in charge of national strategy and if they decide more women on the list would be beneficial to them then so be it.

Carlos Orange

meeeeh wrote: »

How so? If party puts forward 30 percent women, there will still be twice as many men on ticket. Also party is in charge of national strategy and if they decide more women on the list would be beneficial to them then so be it.

When the answer to the question "why didn't I get the job" is "you are a man" discrimination is pretty obvious. Individuals are discriminated against not classes of people. A company couldn't for example decide not to hire any more non white people because they already have 2 of them without discriminating against future job applicants.

steddyeddy

I genuinely think there people from disadvantaged backgrounds have a harder time of it when it comes to opportunities. This is particularly the case in British law or finance but never in a million years would I think quotas for certain groups are the way forward.

meeeeh

psinno wrote: »

When the answer to the question "why didn't I get the job" is "you are a man" discrimination is pretty obvious. Individuals are discriminated against not classes of people. A company couldn't for example decide not to hire any more non white people because they already have 2 of them without discriminating against future job applicants.

Yes but in elections you are still allowed to run outside party. I don't know why the idea that there should be just whoever the local members vote in. There should be some sort of national strategy, your party membership could be predominately old, male and poor representation of electorate. FF has the oldest voters in the country, if they don't do anything to attract younger voters, their base will die out. So the local FF members electing their drinking buddy might not be the best option for the party.

Carlos Orange

meeeeh wrote: »

Yes but in elections you are still allowed to run outside party.

So why do we need to mandate who parties run. Can't women just run as independents?

osarusan

meeeeh wrote: »

Yes but in elections you are still allowed to run outside party.

That doesn't mean it isn't discrimination.

The guy was told he wouldn't be able to run for office because a woman was chosen instead, simply because she is a woman.

That's pretty much a textbook example of discrimination, regardless of the options still available to him.

meeeeh

osarusan wrote: »

That doesn't mean it isn't discrimination.

The guy was told he wouldn't be able to run for office because a woman was chosen instead, simply because she is a woman.

That's pretty much a textbook example of discrimination, regardless of the options still available to him.

But what if party considers having more women on the ticket is beneficial to them. Is that discrimination or party maximizing the amount of money or votes they could get?

Carlos Orange

meeeeh wrote: »

But what if party considers having more women on the ticket is beneficial to them. Is that discrimination or party maximizing the amount of money or votes they could get?

Can't it be both?

osarusan

meeeeh wrote: »

But what if party considers having more women on the ticket is beneficial to them.

What if?

What if a shop owner thinks that if they don't let any Roma or Travellers in the door, it'll be beneficial to their business?

meeeeh wrote: »

Is that discrimination or party maximizing the amount of money or votes they could get?

It's both*

*(although in this case, posters have argued that they merely paying lip service and meeting quotas by putting women forward as candidates for seats they're likely to lose anyway)

Daith

osarusan wrote: »

*(although in this case, posters have argued that they are putting women forward as candidates for seats they're likely to lose anyway)

As I said

Deirdre Heney won the nomination for Dublin Bay North against Sean Haughey
FF added Sean Haughey to the ticket anyway

If FF didn't add Sean then one of the guys in the OP would probably be in for the running also.

Sean was simply deemed a stronger candidate.

I do think quotas can be discriminatory but there's alot more going on in this case.

Alot easier for the guys affected here to say "I didn't get the nod because I'm a man vs I didn't get the nod because my party doesn't have faith I'm a strong candidate in the area". If FF thought for one second these guys were a good bet, they'd be on the ticket.

(and the idea of gender quotas leading to women picked for weak areas isn't a new thing).

ancapailldorcha

steddyeddy wrote: »

I genuinely think there people from disadvantaged backgrounds have a harder time of it when it comes to opportunities. This is particularly the case in British law or finance but never in a million years would I think quotas for certain groups are the way forward.

To be honest, I'd rather see more efforts concentrated at getting people from working class backgrounds involved in politics, ie people who resemble the majority of the population as opposed to the usual papering over approach. I don't see much point in replacing rich white men with women from the same demographic via quotas though I do agree with initiatives aimed at encouraging more women to consider a career in politics and to engage in political activism.

osarusan

Daith wrote: »

As I said

Deirdre Heney won the nomination for Dublin Bay North against Sean Haughey
FF added Sean Haughey to the ticket anyway

If FF didn't add Sean then one of the guys in the OP would probably be in for the running also.

What FF do in other constituencies isn't really relevant to the question of whether this is discrimination or not.

Daith wrote: »

I do think quotas can be discriminatory but there's alot more going on in this case.

In this case, this particular case, according to the Irish Times:

Members of the party in Dublin South Central and Dublin Central received a letter last night from the national conventions committee stating it had decided that “one candidate be selected at the convention and that candidate be a woman”.
It is the first time any of the major parties has issued an instruction that a single candidate of a particular gender be selected.

It certainly seems like discrimination to me, based on that, and the wider context isn't really relevant at all, I don't think.

Daith wrote: »

Alot easier for the guys affected here to say "I didn't get the nod because I'm a man vs I didn't get the nod because my party doesn't have faith I'm a strong candidate in the area".

It doesn't look like mere excuses in this particular case.

Carlos Orange

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't see much point in replacing rich white men with women from the same demographic via quotas though I do agree with initiatives aimed at encouraging more women to consider a career in politics and to engage in political activism.

So you don't see much progress in replacing a system where the son of a former TD gets chosen with a system where the daughter of a former TD gets chosen?

Daith

osarusan wrote: »

It certainly seems like discrimination to me, based on that, and the wider context isn't really relevant at all, I don't think.

Politics has everything to do with the wider context.

FF are running areas with two men on the ticket rather than one man one woman. They're entire plan is to maximize who will get an elected while getting all their funding.

osarusan

Daith wrote: »

Politics has everything to do with the wider context.

I think that is a copout to be honest.