Ladies and gentlemen, the first ridiculous consequence of gender quotas

Daith

osarusan wrote: »

I think that is a copout to be honest.

Not at all. In some cases FF are running two men in an area. For every man that they run they know the chances of them running another man in a different area decreases.

expectationlost

kneemos wrote: »

They just going to run the extra female candidates in unwinnable constituencies anyway so I can't see any net gain in gender ratio.

well here we see something else, what chance she has I don't know

osarusan

Daith wrote: »

Not at all. In some cases FF are running two men in an area. For every man that they run they know the chances of them running another man in a different area decreases.

That doesn't make it any less discriminatory in this particular case.

If a company issues a directive across all regional offices that 20% of all new employees must be women, and this manifests itself down the line in regional office Z where the interviewers are told that, to meet the 20% quota, even though there are candidates of both sexes, the person who gets the job must be a woman, it is still discrimination.

meeeeh

Crixus2000 wrote: »

If that figure would have been 10% then the 20% who were men lost their positions simply due to their gender. That's unacceptable.

And it's acceptable that only 10% are women? The dismal state of childcare tells you that women have very little policy input. Ireland has one of the highest shares of non working adults who are not seeking employment and it's predominately women. You really think it's men being discriminated, when the whole system is geared against women actively participating in work outside home or in politics.

osarusan

You edited this into your post:

Daith wrote: »

They're entire plan is to maximize who will get an elected while getting all their funding.

Yes, I fully understand that it is part of a wider scheme to balance getting votes and getting funding, but that doesn't mean it isn't also discrimination.

suicide_circus

Beware the ideologue.

Daith

osarusan wrote: »

Yes, I fully understand that it is part of a wider scheme to balance getting votes and getting funding, but that doesn't mean it isn't also discrimination.

I don't know if discrimination rules apply to parties like this (aren't they private clubs or something?).



In anycase all I'm saying is this:

These men aren't getting nod because they're men yes and because there are other men in different areas who their party thinks has a better chance of getting elected.

anvilfour

Remember though - Feminists just want equality... :-D

ancapailldorcha

psinno wrote: »

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?

No. That was my point.

Daith

anvilfour wrote: »

Remember though - Feminists just want equality... :-D

I would actually be insulted if I was a women and only got the nod because of the quota.

Much like the BBC Panel shows that needed to have a least women female.

osarusan

Daith wrote: »

In any case all I'm saying is this:

These men aren't getting nod because they're men yes

And that is all I'm saying. They didn't get it because of their sex.

and because there are other men in different areas who their party thinks has a better chance of getting elected.

Wider policies on gender quotas, or quotas of any kind, don't exclude something from being discriminatory - in fact they make it more likely in the end as somebody, somewhere, will get passed over for something because of that quota.


Is more women in politics a good thing? I would say yes.

Will quotas achieve that? I would say definitely yes.

Will it be fair in all cases? I would say no, and certainly not initially, in the way FF are going about it.

jackofalltrades

Yeah blatant discrimination, plain and simple.
And I see the arguments for quotas are as weak as ever.

I'd love to see how suggestions for a 40% quota would go down in female dominated workplaces?

Dan_Solo

I've a quota of women's arses to pinch and ask "shouldn't you be married off instead of working?" this month.
Once I call it a quota it isn't sexist anymore apparently. Yay.

Carlos Orange

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Yeah blatant discrimination, plain and simple.
And I see the arguments for quotas are as weak as ever.

I'd love to see how suggestions for a 40% quota would go down in female dominated workplaces?

I'd love to see how a quota on university entrance would go down.

Annasopra

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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

But don't you promote an equality of outcome economic system?

Annasopra

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

It's misleading to suggest there is only one form of egalitarianism/equality. Egalitarians have posited that there are three different forms of equality - not just one. - Basic equality, Liberal equality and Equality of condition. Many egalitarians do support equality of condition as it goes above and beyond the liberal equality ideas of equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

See Baker, Lynch, Cantillon and Walsh 2006

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://irserver.ucd.ie/bitstream/handle/10197/2086/Baker%2520Lynch%2520Cantillon%2520Walsh%2520(2006)%2520Equality%2520Putting%2520the%2520Theory%2520into%2520Action%2520(pre-print).pdf%3Fsequence%3D1&ved=0CCAQFjABahUKEwij1bO2-4DIAhXKaxQKHTqUB_g&usg=AFQjCNFcuG2QCRilPlMNot2f824LPJU9iQ&sig2=gkwrmKwAfYPitbm5XKaUGw

Annasopra

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.

There's no smearing here at all.

I completely support quotas because I'm an egalitarian. This idea that there is only one form of egalitarianism and it is anti quotas is absolute nonsense.

KomradeBishop

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But don't you promote an equality of outcome economic system?

What have I promoted that gives you that idea? (n.b. the username is just a pisstake of people calling me 'Marxist' all the time, without actually knowing anything about my views - I don't support that, it's as debunked economically as Libertarianism)

osarusan

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I completely support quotas because I'm an egalitarian.

Do you think the quota has been discriminatory in this case?

KomradeBishop

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It's misleading to suggest there is only one form of egalitarianism/equality. Egalitarians have posited that there are three different forms of equality - not just one. - Basic equality, Liberal equality and Equality of condition. Many egalitarians do support equality of condition as it goes above and beyond the liberal equality ideas of equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

See Baker, Lynch, Cantillon and Walsh 2006

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://irserver.ucd.ie/bitstream/handle/10197/2086/Baker%2520Lynch%2520Cantillon%2520Walsh%2520(2006)%2520Equality%2520Putting%2520the%2520Theory%2520into%2520Action%2520(pre-print).pdf%3Fsequence%3D1&ved=0CCAQFjABahUKEwij1bO2-4DIAhXKaxQKHTqUB_g&usg=AFQjCNFcuG2QCRilPlMNot2f824LPJU9iQ&sig2=gkwrmKwAfYPitbm5XKaUGw

A quote from that paper:

The radical ideal of equality of condition differs from the views of liberal egalitarians in all five dimensions.

There seems to be emphasis in that paper, of separating 'equality of outcome/condition' from egalitarianism - i.e. as a statement on how things are - though it recommends including equality of outcome in future egalitarian policy proscriptions - i.e. as a statement of how things should be in the future.

I just skimmed it, so maybe I misread, but that seems to indicate that egalitarianism is presently not about equality of outcome.

I provided a source earlier as well, that points out egalitarians tend to not support equality of outcome.

KomradeBishop

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

There's no smearing here at all.

I completely support quotas because I'm an egalitarian. This idea that there is only one form of egalitarianism and it is anti quotas is absolute nonsense.

The posters labelling egalitarianism as 'equality of outcome' are generalizing about all egalitarians - when sources show that most egalitarians don't support that.

There is not a lot of literature showing - in the present - many 'equality of outcome' egalitarian views.

Sure, you have different branches within all movements, supporting a very wide array of different policies, but by and large egalitarianism does not seem to include support for such views - although propagandists will try and pull the trick, of finding the minority/outliers in a movement, and trying to paint the whole movement as holding their views (you see it with feminism most prominently), in order to smear a movement (not stating that of you, mainly of the publications I mentioned earlier).

What branches of egalitarian views, that are notable enough to have a specific name defining them, hold 'equality of outcome' views? (I'm sure that exists, but I'm not sure it's common enough to be notable)

hatrickpatrick

I genuinely don't understand why people are arguing about, or confused over, whether or not this is discrimination.

It's fairly black and white from where I'm standing - if somebody is told "sorry, you didn't get position X, and the reason for that is because you are of the wrong gender", then that person has been discriminated against. Simple as. There's absolutely no difference between that and saying "sorry, you didn't get position X, and the reason for that is because your skin is the wrong colour".

Pat Mustard

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I genuinely don't understand why people are arguing about, or confused over, whether or not this is discrimination.

It's fairly black and white from where I'm standing - if somebody is told "sorry, you didn't get position X, and the reason for that is because you are of the wrong gender", then that person has been discriminated against. Simple as. There's absolutely no difference between that and saying "sorry, you didn't get position X, and the reason for that is because your skin is the wrong colour".

Not only that but we are talking about legalized gender discrimination.

Satan is Real

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

There's no smearing here at all.

I completely support quotas because I'm an egalitarian. This idea that there is only one form of egalitarianism and it is anti quotas is absolute nonsense.

Let's have a quota for straight people so. I mean you don't mind not getting the job because you're gay right?

TOMs WIFE

I will not be voting for any woman that is proven to be there as a result of a quota. This is discrimination.

If everyone followed suit the number of women actually elected would drop and the powers that be would learn a valuable lesson.

zeffabelli

KomradeBishop wrote: »

A quote from that paper:

The radical ideal of equality of condition differs from the views of liberal egalitarians in all five dimensions.

There seems to be emphasis in that paper, of separating 'equality of outcome/condition' from egalitarianism - i.e. as a statement on how things are - though it recommends including equality of outcome in future egalitarian policy proscriptions - i.e. as a statement of how things should be in the future.

I just skimmed it, so maybe I misread, but that seems to indicate that egalitarianism is presently not about equality of outcome.

I provided a source earlier as well, that points out egalitarians tend to not support equality of outcome.

What equal opportunity means, legally and in reality is that if you have two people, one black man and one white man, with the same qualifications, by law YOU have to hire the black man.

If you have ONE white man and one WHITE woman, then you HAVE to hire the woman.

If you want Federal funding for your university then you have to have a minimum amount of women and minorities enrolled.

That is what "EQUAL OPPORTUNITY" actually means.

Frankly, we all have the opportunity to become politicians, this level of social engineering where the voting process is mico managed is entirely NOT ACCEPTABLE, even by the most crackpot leftist standards.

KomradeBishop

zeffabelli wrote: »

What equal opportunity means, legally and in reality is that if you have two people, one black man and one white man, with the same qualifications, by law YOU have to hire the black man.

If you have ONE white man and one WHITE woman, then you HAVE to hire the woman.

If you want Federal funding for your university then you have to have a minimum amount of women and minorities enrolled.

That is what "EQUAL OPPORTUNITY" actually means.

Frankly, we all have the opportunity to become politicians, this level of social engineering where the voting process is mico managed is entirely NOT ACCEPTABLE, even by the most crackpot leftist standards.

Just because someone writes a law implementing Equality of Outcome, and slaps the 'Equality of Opportunity' label on it, doesn't make that equality of opportunity.

What you describe above is not equality of opportunity, it is equality of outcome. They are not one and the same.

The same publications I was criticizing earlier, deliberately try to blur the lines between equality of opportunity and outcome, as a propaganda exercise - so that advocates of the former (equality of opportunity) can be smeared as supporting the latter (equality of outcome), so that they can be more easily attacked with straw-men (such as the straw-man I pointed out, of falsely claiming egalitarianism is about outcome-based views).


You're just restating the same debunked claims as earlier (trying to make a link between egalitarianism and outcome-based views), and are just changing tack/argument - and in this case, the arguments amounts to trying to state that black is white (that equality of opportunity amounts to equality of outcome).


Have you checked the publications, where you read about these views, for a history of propaganda/disinformation? If you can state which specific publications they are, I am quite certain I can find you ample evidence of propaganda/disinformation/provable-lies - which would make it foolish to trust anything written in such publications.

zeffabelli

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Just because someone writes a law implementing Equality of Outcome, and slaps the 'Equality of Opportunity' label on it, doesn't make that equality of opportunity.

What you describe above is not equality of opportunity, it is equality of outcome. They are not one and the same.

The same publications I was criticizing earlier, deliberately try to blur the lines between equality of opportunity and outcome, as a propaganda exercise - so that advocates of the former (equality of opportunity) can be smeared as supporting the latter (equality of outcome), so that they can be more easily attacked with straw-men (such as the straw-man I pointed out, of falsely claiming egalitarianism is about outcome-based views).


You're just restating the same debunked claims as earlier (trying to make a link between egalitarianism and outcome-based views), and are just changing tack/argument - and in this case, the arguments amounts to trying to state that black is white.


Have you checked the publications, where you read about these views, for a history of propaganda/disinformation? If you can state which specific publications they are, I am quite certain I can find you ample evidence of propaganda/disinformation/provable-lies - which would make it foolish to trust anything written in such publications.

You know when it says we are an EOE....that is what it means...it is a LEGAL definition.

Oh VEH.

Daith

Daith wrote: »

I would actually be insulted if I was a women and only got the nod because of the quota.

Much like the BBC Panel shows that needed to have a least women female.

The female TDs voted against quotas when the lads wanted to bring them in

Despite poor Dáil representation, most women TDs do not want gender quotas, writes MARY MINIHAN
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/i-don-t-believe-quotas-are-a-solution-to-imbalance-1.632623

jackofalltrades

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I genuinely don't understand why people are arguing about, or confused over, whether or not this is discrimination.

For some people sexism is something that only women can be the victim of.
That don't want this view challenged so will ignore, dismiss or ridicule anything that challenges it.

KomradeBishop

zeffabelli wrote: »

You know when it says we are an EOE....that is what it means...it is a LEGAL definition.

Oh VEH.

Assume that means 'equal opportunity employer' - that's not what the subject is about.

Just because you slap a label on a law, or create a legal definition, doesn't mean that overrides/rewrites the actual definition, of a term like 'equality of opportunity' or 'egalitarianism'.

hatrickpatrick

jackofalltrades wrote: »

For some people sexism is something that only women can be the victim of.
That don't want this view challenged so will ignore, dismiss or ridicule anything that challenges it.

Only crazy US SJWs in my experience. Those who subscribe to the "you discrimination is ok if it's against 'privileged' people".

I wouldn't have thought this mentality was very prevalent in Ireland. Truth be told it's not all that prevalent in the US either, it's just that the US media tends to give a platform to muppetry, hence Donald Trump.

Nichard Dixon

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I completely support quotas because I'm an egalitarian.

No doubt you also support restricting who should run for election because you are democrat.

The English language takes a beating.

jackofalltrades

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Only crazy US SJWs in my experience. Those who subscribe to the "you discrimination is ok if it's against 'privileged' people".

I wouldn't have thought this mentality was very prevalent in Ireland. Truth be told it's not all that prevalent in the US either, it's just that the US media tends to give a platform to muppetry, hence Donald Trump.

You can see it on this thread.
People minimising or outright dismissing what is being said.

Annasopra

bluewolf wrote: »

The female TDs voted against quotas when the lads wanted to bring them in

No TD voted against this law in the Dail.

meeeeh

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Not only that but we are talking about legalized gender discrimination.

Oh yeah the unofficial is so much better. When you organize politics in a way that makes it very hard for women to run. And then you decide that women don't want to be in politics anyway, they prefer minding kids and knitting. I'm not Irish and while I was very proud how Ireland dealt about same sex issues, the treatment of women in this country is absolutely appalling. And no that it's legalized more than 50% of population should have 30% representation on the ballot, not in the parliament, on the ballot, this is discrimination. Because only lesbians and feminazis would want to run anyway, the rest prefer knitting and let men deal with the important stuff.

Majority of EU countries are trying to do something to increase female representation. And in majority of EU countries my views would be fairly conservative, here I sometimes feel like some pinko liberal.

zeffabelli

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Only crazy US SJWs in my experience. Those who subscribe to the "you discrimination is ok if it's against 'privileged' people".

I wouldn't have thought this mentality was very prevalent in Ireland. Truth be told it's not all that prevalent in the US either, it's just that the US media tends to give a platform to muppetry, hence Donald Trump.

The news and the Internet always give a distortionist negative perspective on reality, enhancing inaporopriate cynicism.

Balanced news.... No such thing.

Pat Mustard

meeeeh wrote: »

Oh yeah the unofficial is so much better. When you organize politics in a way that makes it very hard for women to run. And then you decide that women don't want to be in politics anyway, they prefer minding kids and knitting. I'm not Irish and while I was very proud how Ireland dealt about same sex issues, the treatment of women in this country is absolutely appalling. And no that it's legalized more than 50% of population should have 30% representation on the ballot, not in the parliament, on the ballot, this is discrimination. Because only lesbians and feminazis would want to run anyway, the rest prefer knitting and let men deal with the important stuff.

Majority of EU countries are trying to do something to increase female representation. And in majority of EU countries my views would be fairly conservative, here I sometimes feel like some pinko liberal.

I've already mentioned how I think that female representation can be increased properly, to encourage candidates with ability to do the job.

What's your point?

ancapailldorcha

meeeeh wrote: »

Oh yeah the unofficial is so much better. When you organize politics in a way that makes it very hard for women to run. And then you decide that women don't want to be in politics anyway, they prefer minding kids and knitting. I'm not Irish and while I was very proud how Ireland dealt about same sex issues, the treatment of women in this country is absolutely appalling. And no that it's legalized more than 50% of population should have 30% representation on the ballot, not in the parliament, on the ballot, this is discrimination. Because only lesbians and feminazis would want to run anyway, the rest prefer knitting and let men deal with the important stuff.

Majority of EU countries are trying to do something to increase female representation. And in majority of EU countries my views would be fairly conservative, here I sometimes feel like some pinko liberal.

Running as a TD or an MP over here is an incredibly arduous process which inherently excludes the vast majority of people. It costs a fortune to run a campaign so parties are more likely to choose people who can fund their own. In addition, a candidate will need a lot of volunteers, office premises, etc. I don't think that anyone will disagree with the idea that politics is a traditionally male profession. However, this is changing and it's a bit insulting for you to insinuate that men hold women in such low regarding that all of them would prefer to knit.

Pat Mustard

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

it's a bit insulting for you to insinuate that men hold women in such low regarding that all of them would prefer to knit.

I suppose that it's the easy way out, to lay blame at the door of the male chauvinist bogeyman rather than attempt to construct a cogent argument in favour of gender quotas.

suicide_circus

meeeeh wrote: »

Oh yeah the unofficial is so much better. When you organize politics in a way that makes it very hard for women to run. And then you decide that women don't want to be in politics anyway, they prefer minding kids and knitting. I'm not Irish and while I was very proud how Ireland dealt about same sex issues, the treatment of women in this country is absolutely appalling. And no that it's legalized more than 50% of population should have 30% representation on the ballot, not in the parliament, on the ballot, this is discrimination. Because only lesbians and feminazis would want to run anyway, the rest prefer knitting and let men deal with the important stuff.

Majority of EU countries are trying to do something to increase female representation. And in majority of EU countries my views would be fairly conservative, here I sometimes feel like some pinko liberal.

Wow

meeeeh

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Running as a TD or an MP over here is an incredibly arduous process which inherently excludes the vast majority of people. It costs a fortune to run a campaign so parties are more likely to choose people who can fund their own. In addition, a candidate will need a lot of volunteers, office premises, etc. I don't think that anyone will disagree with the idea that politics is a traditionally male profession. However, this is changing and it's a bit insulting for you to insinuate that men hold women in such low regarding that all of them would prefer to knit.

You might be insulted but Ireland has I think the highest (or one of the highest) percentages of people outside work force in EU (not unemployed) and they are predominantly women. The policies are very much stacked against women when you look at reproductive rights or the possibilities bro work after having kids.

It's not that I don't really like this country and I actually believe many things are great about it but I do find the idea that the men are discriminated against in politics a bit laughable. (There is discrimination of men around fathers rights. )

zeffabelli

meeeeh wrote: »

You might be insulted but Ireland has I think the highest (or one of the highest) percentages of people outside work force in EU (not unemployed) and they are predominantly women. The policies are very much stacked against women when you look at reproductive rights or the possibilities bro work after having kids.

It's not that I don't really like this country and I actually believe many things are great about it but I do find the idea that the men are discriminated against in politics a bit laughable. (There is discrimination of men around fathers rights. )

Between the cost of childcare, and the abortion laws, I have to agree with you.

We are breeding cattle.....no more.

The idea that women politicians will do more for women is stupid. JOan Burton I think still technically qualifies as a woman, and what has she done?

Nothing.

ancapailldorcha

meeeeh wrote: »

You might be insulted but Ireland has I think the highest (or one of the highest) percentages of people outside work force in EU (not unemployed) and they are predominantly women. The policies are very much stacked against women when you look at reproductive rights or the possibilities bro work after having kids.

It's not that I don't really like this country and I actually believe many things are great about it but I do find the idea that the men are discriminated against in politics a bit laughable. (There is discrimination of men around fathers rights. )

Do you have a source for your former claim? I'll cede your point about reproductive rights but progress is being made in helping women who've had children to make progress in their careers.

zeffabelli

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Do you have a source for your former claim? I'll cede your point about reproductive rights but progress is being made in helping women who've had children to make progress in their careers.

Like what?

ancapailldorcha

zeffabelli wrote: »

Like what?

Unemployment statistics.

zeffabelli

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Unemployment statistics.

How do unemployment statistics help women who have had kids?

ancapailldorcha

zeffabelli wrote: »

How do unemployment statistics help women who have had kids?

I was asking if there was a source for the claim that most of the unemployed were women and that it was down to sexism.

Pat Mustard

meeeeh wrote: »

I do find the idea that the men are discriminated against in politics a bit laughable.

I think that you understand that a gender quota is legalized gender discrimination but you think that it is somehow fair enough because gender quotas suit your agenda.

Is that about right?

joe_six_cans

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I was asking if there was a source for the claim that most of the unemployed were women and that it was down to sexism.

id be interested in a source for that too , i do know that single women under thirty five earn more than their male counterparts on average and that the recession effected male workers more negatively , makes sense of course as the construction sector saw the biggest decline and it was overwhelmingly male