Gender quotas and other other positive discriminations

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

It hasn't happened yet as far as I can see.

What date do you expect it to happen?

I don't, in the absence of whatever societal changes are required to facilitate it.

You inadvertently made my point for me: women were allowed to vote in Ireland in 1918, and two years short of a century later, fewer than a quarter of Dáil seats are filled by women - a percentage that puts us on par with the UAE, and behind Iraq and Afghanistan.

The argument goes that since there is no legal bar on women standing for election, nor on other women voting for them, there's no problem: everything's hunky dory, and if a woman is the right person for the job, she'll be elected. Which leads to the dichotomy you rejected out of hand: either there are half as many women sufficiently capable of being elected representatives as there are men; or there are other issues at play.

I don't like the idea of gender quotas, for the reasons you've outlined. But I also don't like systemic (as opposed to legislative) discrimination, and, since I reject the idea that women are inherently less capable of running the country than men, it is evident that there are systemic barriers that need to be dismantled.

Gender quotas are a means to that end. They are not an end in themselves. They are a way of saying to political parties: fix whatever is broken in your systems that makes it less likely for women to get elected. They have downsides, but to focus exclusively on the downsides is to accept the status quo.

If you don't like gender quotas, but you accept that the reason they exist is to address systemic barriers to entry, shouldn't you be suggesting alternatives to quotas that will be at least as effective at eliminating those barriers?

AnGaelach

oscarBravo wrote: »

The argument goes that since there is no legal bar on women standing for election, nor on other women voting for them, there's no problem: everything's hunky dory, and if a woman is the right person for the job, she'll be elected. Which leads to the dichotomy you rejected out of hand: either there are half as many women sufficiently capable of being elected representatives as there are men; or there are other issues at play.

Yeah, that women don't want to stand for the elections or can't attract enough support to do so.

By saying that women making up 50% of the electorate, the Dáil should be 50% women - that also means since I'm a white Irish male, I should only vote for white Irish males?

Stop trying to play identity politics.

Professor Moriarty

AnGaelach wrote: »

Yeah, that women don't want to stand for the elections or can't attract enough support to do so.

By saying that women making up 50% of the electorate, the Dáil should be 50% women - that also means since I'm a white Irish male, I should only vote for white Irish males?

Stop trying to play identity politics.

Given equal opportunity, one cohort of human beings should be as successful as another cohort of human beings in most endeavours, politics being one such endeavour. Would you agree?

Count Dooku

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Given equal opportunity, one cohort of human beings should be as successful as another cohort of human beings in most endeavours, politics being one such endeavour.

And what stopping women to be as successful as men in politics?

Professor Moriarty

Count Dooku wrote: »

And what stopping women to be as successful as men in politics?

Care to respond to my question?

Widdershins

Ireland has already had two female presidents-more than America has ever had.

What a strange point. There's no bar to women making a career in politics. The logical explanation is that the number of women in politics is reflective of the preferences of those particular women, and nothing more.

There's no need to have any particular configuration of genders represented in politics.

Count Dooku

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Care to respond to my question?

TBH I don't see a real question
You made an assumption and presented it as a fact, while I don't consider your assumption as an axiom because I don't see anything which artificially stops women to be in politics as successful as men

oscarBravo

AnGaelach wrote: »

Yeah, that women don't want to stand for the elections or can't attract enough support to do so.

That's a reasonable assessment. What's not reasonable is stopping there, and not asking why it's the case.

By saying that women making up 50% of the electorate, the Dáil should be 50% women - that also means since I'm a white Irish male, I should only vote for white Irish males?

No. Don't be silly. There's no logical way you can arrive at the latter part of that sentence from the former.

I bet if you thought really hard about it, you could figure out all by yourself why, logically, it would make sense for the makeup of the Dáil to broadly track the makeup of the electorate, besides people only voting for people like them.

I'll even give you a hint: think mathematics, rather than identity politics.

Now, I can't force you think logically about the issue, but I can invite you to do so. If you choose not to, that's up to you.

Count Dooku

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a reasonable assessment. What's not reasonable is stopping there, and not asking why it's the case. No. Don't be silly. There's no logical way you can arrive at the latter part of that sentence from the former.

Probably for the same reasons why women are less attracted by engineering jobs. Dirty politics are not so attractive for majority of women and most of them like to rely on men there
If woman is capable for the politics, nothing will stop her to get there

oscarBravo

Count Dooku wrote: »

Probably for the same reasons why women are less attracted by engineering jobs. Dirty politics are not so attractive for majority of women and most of them like to rely on men there

Yeah, my sister has come across a lot of that sort of patronising generalisation in her engineering career.

If woman is capable for the politics, nothing will stop her to get there

So, your answer is yes: the fact that there are fewer women in politics is because women are less capable?

Count Dooku

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, my sister has come across a lot of that sort of patronising generalisation in her engineering career.

Where did I say that there are no women at all in engineering?

oscarBravo wrote: »

So, your answer is yes: the fact that there are fewer women in politics is because women are less capable?

Actually I used less 'attractive for majority of women'

Professor Moriarty

Count Dooku wrote: »

TBH I don't see a real question
You made an assumption and presented it as a fact, while I don't consider your assumption as an axiom because I don't see anything which artificially stops women to be in politics as successful as men

I'm trying to establish a principle. What do you think of it?

marienbad

Count Dooku wrote: »

Where did I say that there are no women at all in engineering?

Actually I used less 'attractive for majority of women'

The question is why is politics less attractive for the majority of women ?

oscarBravo

Count Dooku wrote: »

Where did I say that there are no women at all in engineering?

You didn't. You just said that most women don't want to be engineers or politicians, which is a meaningless truism, because most men don't want to be engineers or politicians either.

Actually I used less 'attractive for majority of women'

Assuming you mean attractive for a smaller percentage of women than for men, why do you think so? As in, what evidence do you have for it, and if it's true, why is it so?

the_syco

marienbad wrote: »

The question is why is politics less attractive for the majority of women ?

No, the question is; why do women not only vote for women?

Freedom of choice, I would assume; perhaps they don't agree with what the candidate stands for.

But who cares. Lets put a quota in place so that X amount of women will be in the dail. Not entirely sure how this will happen if no-one votes for them?

AnGaelach

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a reasonable assessment. What's not reasonable is stopping there, and not asking why it's the case.

Because they don't want to. Men are "underrepresented" in things like social care, should we then ask why men don't want to do it and call for 50% of the workforce being male? No. Every person makes their own decisions, you trying to force things onto them that they do not necessarily desire - solely because you think it's a good idea.

oscarBravo wrote: »

No. Don't be silly. There's no logical way you can arrive at the latter part of that sentence from the former.

Of course it is, you're arguing for identity politics - that since the electorate is half female, logically the Dáil should be half-female. How do you think that's going to come about, exactly? By men voting for women and women voting for men?

If the Dáil should reflect the electorate, that means that I should vote for white Irish men since they're the ones who "reflect" me.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I bet if you thought really hard about it, you could figure out all by yourself why, logically, it would make sense for the makeup of the Dáil to broadly track the makeup of the electorate, besides people only voting for people like them.

I'll even give you a hint: think mathematics, rather than identity politics.

Now, I can't force you think logically about the issue, but I can invite you to do so. If you choose not to, that's up to you.

But that is exactly what you are doing. You are espousing an identitarian philosophy. It is also completely anti-democratic, to impose what you believe to be "fair" at the expense of what people want to vote for.

You're pretending to be logical but you aren't. You're engaging in handwringing and feel-good nonsense, the very same thing that has caused the Boomerang Effect in the US and Britain.

Stop trying to play identity politics, and just let it be a god damn meritocracy like it should be.

AnGaelach

Count Dooku wrote: »

Where did I say that there are no women at all in engineering?

He's trying to score victim points.

Professor Moriarty

AnGaelach wrote: »

Because they don't want to. Men are "underrepresented" in things like social care, should we then ask why men don't want to do it and call for 50% of the workforce being male? No. Every person makes their own decisions, you trying to force things onto them that they do not necessarily desire - solely because you think it's a good idea.



Of course it is, you're arguing for identity politics - that since the electorate is half female, logically the Dáil should be half-female. How do you think that's going to come about, exactly? By men voting for women and women voting for men?

If the Dáil should reflect the electorate, that means that I should vote for white Irish men since they're the ones who "reflect" me.



But that is exactly what you are doing. You are espousing an identitarian philosophy. It is also completely anti-democratic, to impose what you believe to be "fair" at the expense of what people want to vote for.

You're pretending to be logical but you aren't. You're engaging in handwringing and feel-good nonsense, the very same thing that has caused the Boomerang Effect in the US and Britain.

Stop trying to play identity politics, and just let it be a god damn meritocracy like it should be.

If society's primary principle is 'meritocracy' then where does that leave people who might not be as capable as other people, e.g. blind people? Where does it leave people who are raised in relatively disadvantaged circumstances? Where does it leave people who are discriminated against because of colour, gender or creed? A true meritocracy implies equality of opportunity.

osmiumartist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Given equal opportunity, one cohort of human beings should be as successful as another cohort of human beings in most endeavours, politics being one such endeavour. Would you agree?

Cohorts of people are different from other cohorts.
So very provably no is the answer.

osmiumartist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If society's primary principle is 'meritocracy' then where does that leave people who might not be as capable as other people, e.g. blind people?

Already dealt with.
You want a blind guy piloting your next flight to Majorca to suit your diversity quota?

Professor Moriarty

osmiumartist wrote: »

Cohorts of people are different from other cohorts.
So very provably no is the answer.

Indeed some are. But my question relates to politics. Which cohorts of people, given equal opportunities, are more capable than others?

Professor Moriarty

osmiumartist wrote: »

Already dealt with.
You want a blind guy piloting your next flight to Majorca to suit your diversity quota?

Please do quote any post where I mentioned quotas.

osmiumartist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Please do quote any post where I mentioned quotas.

Tell us then how you plan on making these blind people have the exact same opportunities as non-blind.
Otherwise you'll just have to agree that groups of people (the blind) are not cut out for some things other groups are.

osmiumartist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed some are. But my question relates to politics. Which cohorts of people, given equal opportunities, are more capable than others?

It doesn't have to be capability as already shown. It can be desire to do so.

osmiumartist

oscarBravo wrote: »

You didn't. You just said that most women don't want to be engineers or politicians, which is a meaningless truism, because most men don't want to be engineers or politicians either.

Well that's one way to be needlessly pedantic.
Most is the equivalent of more here. It was a very simple point he was making, you must really be deliberately trying to not understand it.

Professor Moriarty

osmiumartist wrote: »

Tell us then how you plan on making these blind people have the exact same opportunities as non-blind.
Otherwise you'll just have to agree that groups of people (the blind) are not cut out for some things other groups are.

I'd like for them to be given as much support as possible for them to fulfill their potential in whichever endeavour was feasible for them. So flying a plane isn't feasible but, for instance, politics is. So we support blind people more than we support people who can see, thus working towards equality of opportunity. Would you disagree?

Professor Moriarty

osmiumartist wrote: »

It doesn't have to be capability as already shown. It can be desire to do so.

That doesn't answer my question.

AnGaelach

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If society's primary principle is 'meritocracy' then where does that leave people who might not be as capable as other people, e.g. blind people? Where does it leave people who are raised in relatively disadvantaged circumstances? Where does it leave people who are discriminated against because of colour, gender or creed? A true meritocracy implies equality of opportunity.

Are you going to honestly sit there and tell me that women don't have the same equality of opportunity as men?

What you are arguing for with quotas is not "equality of opportunity" you are arguing for "equality of outcome" which is utter nonsense.

AnGaelach

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'd like for them to be given as much support as possible for them to fulfill their potential in whichever endeavour was feasible for them. So flying a plane isn't feasible but, for instance, politics is. So we support blind people more than we support people who can see, thus working towards equality of opportunity. Would you disagree?

No, because the resources being expended on accommodating that person is ridiculously high.

A blind person can still stand for election, there's no law banning them from doing so. People won't vote for them because they don't want to - that is the essence of democracy.

You aren't calling for equality of opportunity, you want equality of outcome, even when that runs over the democratic process.

Professor Moriarty

AnGaelach wrote: »

Are you going to honestly sit there and tell me that women don't have the same equality of opportunity as men?

What you are arguing for with quotas is not "equality of opportunity" you are arguing for "equality of outcome" which is utter nonsense.

'Sit there'? Are you spying on me? Is this The Truman Show?

Yes, in general, women still don't have equality of opportunity. Though it is changing.

If you could turn down the dial on your righteous indignation for a moment, again, I haven't mentioned quotas.

Professor Moriarty

AnGaelach wrote: »

No, because the resources being expended on accommodating that person is ridiculously high.

A blind person can still stand for election, there's no law banning them from doing so. People won't vote for them because they don't want to - that is the essence of democracy.

You aren't calling for equality of opportunity, you want equality of outcome, even when that runs over the democratic process.

So the extra resources being spent to provide a blind person with enough education to compete in politics is 'ridiculously high'. What is your rationale for this position?

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Thread severed from the alt-right thread because opposition to gender quotas is not exclusive to the alt right nor is it, as far as I can see, their main battleground.

oscarBravo

the_syco wrote: »

But who cares. Lets put a quota in place so that X amount of women will be in the dail. Not entirely sure how this will happen if no-one votes for them?

That's not how quotas work. They don't require that X percentage of women be elected; they require that X percentage of candidates for election be women.

Women are broadly speaking as likely to be elected as men, once they get to the point of being on the ballot - which gives the lie to the idea that women are underrepresented in politics because people don't want to vote for them.

AnGaelach wrote: »

Because they don't want to. Men are "underrepresented" in things like social care, should we then ask why men don't want to do it and call for 50% of the workforce being male?

The point you're carefully missing is that elected representatives define social policy in a way that care workers don't. It's the same reason that the percentage of female CEOs of Fortune 500 companies is discussed more than the percentage of female janitors: janitors don't influence corporate policy.

Of course it is, you're arguing for identity politics - that since the electorate is half female, logically the Dáil should be half-female. How do you think that's going to come about, exactly? By men voting for women and women voting for men?

It's going to come about by having candidates who are broadly representative of the electorate.

If the Dáil should reflect the electorate, that means that I should vote for white Irish men since they're the ones who "reflect" me.

You're still refusing to see my point.

Firstly, are you arguing that the Dáil shouldn't broadly represent the electorate? Do you think that the country would be better served by having no elected representatives under the age of 60? Would we have a better government if every TD was a millionaire CEO?

So, no: you "shouldn't" vote for white Irish men, but you certainly shouldn't have to put up with a system that makes it hard for white Irish men to get on the ballot. You should have the opportunity to vote for someone you feel best represents you, and if that means having the opportunity to vote for someone like you, you shouldn't be deprived of that opportunity.

But that is exactly what you are doing. You are espousing an identitarian philosophy. It is also completely anti-democratic, to impose what you believe to be "fair" at the expense of what people want to vote for.

People, generally speaking, want a choice when it comes to voting. If there are systemic barriers in place that mean that someone who wants to be represented by a female politician doesn't have that choice, then those systemic barriers need to be addressed.

Stop trying to play identity politics, and just let it be a god damn meritocracy like it should be.

I want it to be a meritocracy - and that means making sure that female candidates are in a position to allow the electorate to choose (or reject) them on their merits.

The problem is that it's not a meritocracy. Gender quotas are a way of addressing systemic barriers. If you have a better way, let's hear it.

Unless, of course, you subscribe to the view that there are no systemic barriers, and that women just don't want to be politicians. In which case, I'd love to hear some evidence for that particular Edwardian view.

AnGaelach wrote: »

He's trying to score victim points.

What the hell is a victim point?

In Ireland women are as likely to get elected as men on the ballot. Yet they make up a smaller proportion of Independent candidates than within any of the parties. They apparently need hand-holding and "encouragement" from friendly parties to make a run for office.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

In Ireland women are as likely to get elected as men on the ballot. Yet they make up a smaller proportion of Independent candidates than within any of the parties. They apparently need hand-holding and "encouragement" from friendly parties to make a run for office.

You have beautifully illustrated systemic and attitudinal discrimination against women.

Zubeneschamali

osmiumartist wrote: »

Tell us then how you plan on making these blind people have the exact same opportunities as non-blind.

So you are saying that a woman in politics is like a blind man flying an aircraft?

AnGaelach

oscarBravo wrote: »

Women are broadly speaking as likely to be elected as men, once they get to the point of being on the ballot - which gives the lie to the idea that women are underrepresented in politics because people don't want to vote for them.

So then what is the issue exactly? You're sad that more women don't want to stand for election?

oscarBravo wrote: »

The point you're carefully missing is that elected representatives define social policy in a way that care workers don't. It's the same reason that the percentage of female CEOs of Fortune 500 companies is discussed more than the percentage of female janitors: janitors don't influence corporate policy. It's going to come about by having candidates who are broadly representative of the electorate. You're still refusing to see my point.

So, you don't care about actual equality, you just care about women being in more positions of power? Why on earth should I vote for that? Having "quotas" on board seats is just as ridiculous as it is having them on ballot papers - that's not meritocracy at all. The two richest people in Australia are women, should one of them be male? Not at all.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Firstly, are you arguing that the Dáil shouldn't broadly represent the electorate? Do you think that the country would be better served by having no elected representatives under the age of 60? Would we have a better government if every TD was a millionaire CEO?

What I'm arguing is that if everyone wants to vote for millionaires over 60, then they are perfectly entitled to do so.

oscarBravo wrote: »

So, no: you "shouldn't" vote for white Irish men, but you certainly shouldn't have to put up with a system that makes it hard for white Irish men to get on the ballot. You should have the opportunity to vote for someone you feel best represents you, and if that means having the opportunity to vote for someone like you, you shouldn't be deprived of that opportunity. People, generally speaking, want a choice when it comes to voting. If there are systemic barriers in place that mean that someone who wants to be represented by a female politician doesn't have that choice, then those systemic barriers need to be addressed. I want it to be a meritocracy - and that means making sure that female candidates are in a position to allow the electorate to choose (or reject) them on their merits.

Source for the highlighted? Or are you just trying to argue under the assumption that there are in fact barriers in place, but have no evidence for the claim?

oscarBravo wrote: »

The problem is that it's not a meritocracy. Gender quotas are a way of addressing systemic barriers. If you have a better way, let's hear it.

Unless, of course, you subscribe to the view that there are no systemic barriers, and that women just don't want to be politicians. In which case, I'd love to hear some evidence for that particular Edwardian view.

There aren't barriers in place. It's whether the women want to run for that position or not in the first place.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/22/women-in-politics_n_5607061.html

Jennifer Lawless, a Brookings senior fellow who also directs the Women and Politics Institute at American University, analyzed data from a 2011 study that surveyed a national random sample of “equally credentialed” women and men working in law, business, education and politics — four fields from which political candidates commonly emerge. According to Lawless’ paper, there were “no remarkable socio-demographic or professional differences” between the men and the women.

[...]

“Women are very likely to believe that when they run for office, they don’t do as well as men. There’s no empirical evidence to support that,” said Lawless. “When women run, they actually perform just as well on Election Day, they’re able to raise just as much money, and generally speaking, their media coverage looks very much the same. But what we found was that women who are well-situated to run for office don’t know that and don’t think that. So they believe they’re not qualified because they think women have to be twice as good to get half as far.”

So, what now, you're going to complain about how we have to make people feel more comfortable and "examine why they feel that way"?

It's absolute Nanny State nonsense. That's not meritocracy, that's molly-coddling.

AnGaelach

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You have beautifully illustrated systemic and attitudinal discrimination against women.

Refer to my above post - that mollycoddling is exactly what you are arguing for since women lacking confidence is a "systemic" barrier that needs to be redressed.

oscarBravo

AnGaelach wrote: »

So then what is the issue exactly?

The issue is that they're not getting on the ballot. If you weren't so busy bolding things and ignoring the bits you haven't bolded, it's pretty obvious what the issue is.

You're sad that more women don't want to stand for election?

Who says that more women don't want to stand for election?

So, you don't care about actual equality, you just care about women being in more positions of power?

Do you genuinely not understand why it's more important for equality to have women in positions of power than in menial jobs?

Because if you genuinely don't understand that, I suppose I could explain it to you, but if you're just wilfully pretending not to understand something so self-evident, there's not much point.

Why on earth should I vote for that?

Who asked you to vote for it?

The two richest people in Australia are women, should one of them be male? Not at all.

If you can find an example of anyone, anywhere, ever, suggesting that there should be gender balance between the two richest people in Australia, I'd love to see a link to it.

What I'm arguing is that if everyone wants to vote for millionaires over 60, then they are perfectly entitled to do so.

And what I'm arguing is that if the electoral system is set up such that only millionaires over 60 can get on the balance, then it doesn't matter who people want to vote for.

But again: it's obvious that that's what my point is, which leaves me wondering why you're so carefully avoiding it.

Source for the highlighted? Or are you just trying to argue under the assumption that there are in fact barriers in place, but have no evidence for the claim?

[...]

There aren't barriers in place. It's whether the women want to run for that position or not in the first place.

Why are you asking me a question, then telling me the answer in the next sentence? It couldn't be that you have your mind made up, could it?

So, what now, you're going to complain about how we have to make people feel more comfortable and "examine why they feel that way"?

What's so terrible about making people feel comfortable?

Professor Moriarty

AnGaelach wrote: »

Refer to my above post - that mollycoddling is exactly what you are arguing for since women lacking confidence is a "systemic" barrier that needs to be redressed.

Can you quote me where I argued that women should be 'mollycoddled'?
Also, where I said that women's confidence is a systemic barrier?

AnGaelach

oscarBravo wrote: »

The issue is that they're not getting on the ballot. If you weren't so busy bolding things and ignoring the bits you haven't bolded, it's pretty obvious what the issue is.

It's not at all obvious. Women not being on the ballot in the same numbers, is because women don't seek to go into politics in the same numbers.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who says that more women don't want to stand for election? Do you genuinely not understand why it's more important for equality to have women in positions of power than in menial jobs?

Then those women should display the skills required to get on the ballot, like men do. Do you think any ole Tom, Dick or Harry can walk up to Fianna Fail and say "yep I'd like to be on the ballot"?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who asked you to vote for it?

Allow me to rephrase it then - why on earth should I support it?

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you can find an example of anyone, anywhere, ever, suggesting that there should be gender balance between the two richest people in Australia, I'd love to see a link to it. And what I'm arguing is that if the electoral system is set up such that only millionaires over 60 can get on the balance, then it doesn't matter who people want to vote for.

I've asked you before, but I'll ask again - can you provide evidence for your claim of systemic barriers being in place?

oscarBravo wrote: »

But again: it's obvious that that's what my point is, which leaves me wondering why you're so carefully avoiding it.

You don't have a point. You've said you've argued for meritocracy, but then when there aren't actual barriers in place, you've shifted to "well shouldn't we make people feel good?". That's absolute nonsense.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why are you asking me a question, then telling me the answer in the next sentence? It couldn't be that you have your mind made up, could it?

You asked for proof of there not being barriers in place, and I provided it. I added my commentary to the end. You are aware that's how you use quotes and sources, right?

Now, if you could get on with finding evidence of barriers being in place, that'd be nice.

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's so terrible about making people feel comfortable?

Because the world isn't comfortable, it's not a nice and cosy place where people will hold your hand and walk you through your first election and pat you on the back afterwards. It's nothing but emotional feel-good nonsense. You want to stand for election? Then stand on your own merits - don't rely on other people to do the heavy lifting for you.

AnGaelach

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Can you quote me where I argued that women should be 'mollycoddled'?

Is that not what this entire discussion is about? Instead of telling people to do their own work and make themselves the best candidate, we just slap them on the ballot anyway?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Also, where I said that women's confidence is a systemic barrier?

You claimed that making a pass remark about women was evidence of the systemic barriers. I gave a source saying there was no such evidence of these barriers, in practice or in law.

Professor Moriarty

AnGaelach wrote: »

Is that not what this entire discussion is about? Instead of telling people to do their own work and make themselves the best candidate, we just slap them on the ballot anyway?



You claimed that making a pass remark about women was evidence of the systemic barriers. I gave a source saying there was no such evidence of these barriers, in practice or in law.

The title of the thread doesn't mention the word 'mollycoddle'. People who, for whatever reason, cannot compete should be assisted in achieving equality of opportunity.

I didn't claim that " a passing remark" was evidence of systemic barriers. I said the poster's comment about "apparent hand-holding" illustrates a systemic and attitudinal discrimination. I think the word 'mollycoddling' is similarly patronising, as it happens.

AnGaelach

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I didn't claim that " a passing remark" was evidence of systemic barriers. I said the poster's comment about "apparent hand-holding" illustrates a systemic and attitudinal discrimination. I think the word 'mollycoddling' is similarly patronising, as it happens.

That's the exact same thing as saying there's systemic barriers. You'll need to find evidence to support your claim.

Professor Moriarty

AnGaelach wrote:

That's the exact same thing as saying there's systemic barriers. You'll need to find evidence to support your claim.

TDs are not entitled to maternity leave. That is a systemic barrier.

AnGaelach

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

TDs are not entitled to maternity leave. That is a systemic barrier.

They're also not entitled to paternity leave. That isn't an argument for gender quotas. You know your terms when you sign up to stand for election.

Professor Moriarty

AnGaelach wrote:

They're also not entitled to paternity leave.

AnGaelach wrote:

They're also not entitled to paternity leave. That isn't an argument for gender quotas. You know your terms when you sign up to stand for election.

Maternity leave is 26 weeks for almost all workers. TDs are excluded. That is a systemic barrier which discriminates against women who want to be TDs.

AnGaelach

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Maternity leave is 26 weeks for almost all workers. TDs are excluded. That is a systemic barrier which discriminates against women who want to be TDs.

Yeah, and you know this before you sign up to become a TD.

Almost all workers are allowed to strike except the Gardaí/Army etc - is that a systemic barrier that discriminates against men going into those professions? Does TDs not being allowed to have paternity leave discriminate against men who want to become TDs?

oscarBravo

AnGaelach wrote: »

Women not being on the ballot in the same numbers, is because women don't seek to go into politics in the same numbers.

As always, you wander right up to the brink of the point.

The question is: why don't women seek to go into politics in the same numbers?

Then those women should display the skills required to get on the ballot, like men do.

You're never terribly far from the "women don't seek to go into politics because they're not as good as men" trope, are you?

Do you think any ole Tom, Dick or Harry can walk up to Fianna Fail and say "yep I'd like to be on the ballot"?

No, I don't think that. If you can find any evidence of me thinking that, feel free.

Allow me to rephrase it then - why on earth should I support it?

You don't have to support it. Clearly, you're comfortable in your belief that the reason there are fewer women in positions of power than there are men is that women are less deserving of those positions.

What a strange belief for a man to have.

I've asked you before, but I'll ask again - can you provide evidence for your claim of systemic barriers being in place?

I find it strange to be badgered for evidence of something I thought was considered self-evident by anyone who had evolved from the view that a woman's place was barefoot and pregnant. It's a bit like being asked for evidence of anthropogenic global warming, frankly.

I could do some Googling for you, I suppose, but before I waste time on it, do you want to set out some criteria for evidence you won't dismiss out of hand just because you disagree with it?

You don't have a point.

You disagreeing with me doesn't mean I don't have a point. If anything, the fact that you keep arguing around my point suggests that you know I have one, but don't want to confront it.

You've said you've argued for meritocracy, but then when there aren't actual barriers in place, you've shifted to "well shouldn't we make people feel good?". That's absolute nonsense.

Part of it is: the part where you've unilaterally decided that there are no barriers.

You asked for proof of there not being barriers in place, and I provided it.

No, you didn't. You provided evidence that, once they actually get on the ballot, women tend to be as successful as men. Which means that you've carefully skirted, for the umpteenth time, the question of barriers to actually getting on the ballot.

Because the world isn't comfortable, it's not a nice and cosy place where people will hold your hand and walk you through your first election and pat you on the back afterwards.

The straw men are piling up.

You want to stand for election? Then stand on your own merits - don't rely on other people to do the heavy lifting for you.

In other words, if women were as good as men, they'd have no trouble getting elected.

Professor Moriarty

AnGaelach wrote: »

Yeah, and you know this before you sign up to become a TD.

Almost all workers are allowed to strike except the Gardaí/Army etc - is that a systemic barrier that discriminates against men going into those professions? Does TDs not being allowed to have paternity leave discriminate against men who want to become TDs?

I don't understand your point about strikes unless you are forgetting that there are women in the Gardaí and the army. Paternity leave is two weeks so the discrimination is far greater in politics.

You asked for evidence of systemic barriers for women in politics. I told you that they are, almost uniquely, not entitled to maternity leave as TDs. That is as clear a systemic barrier as you can get. Perhaps you might now like to move the discussion along?

oscarBravo

AnGaelach wrote: »

Yeah, and you know this before you sign up to become a TD.

If you're wondering why I haven't done exhaustive research on your behalf on systemic barriers: this is why.

You ask for a systemic barrier, you're given one. You reply "that's not a barrier". Female TDs aren't entitled to the 26 weeks' maternity leave most female workers are; you counter that that's exactly the same thing as male TDs not being entitled to the two weeks' paternity leave that most male workers are.

You're convinced that women are inherently less capable of getting elected than men. I can't imagine anything changing that belief.