Gender quotas and other other positive discriminations

Skommando

Sand wrote: »

There never will be.

I saw a report about a girl in Nepal dying because she had been banished from her home as she was menstruating. In Nepal, though it is officially banned, there is a cultural view that women are going through their cycle or who have recently given birth are unclean. They are banished to the outskirts of the village to live in huts which are often used as shelters for animals. This poor girl was freezing in a poorly ventilated hut. She lit a fire to keep warm, fell asleep and died in her sleep due to the carbon monoxide.

But feminism is about cherry picking plum jobs and roles for upper class women. Certainly not for demanding equal representation in waste management. They of course sympathise with the girl, but how does it benefit them?

Just as sad is the little boy that dies due to abuse for some other reason in Nepal, but you're never going to hear anything about him, he's only a worthless boy. That's more equality for you.

Sand

marienbad wrote: »

So you concede the point that women are restricted to entering a career in politics then ? Just less restricted than PAYE workers ?

I happen to agree with your sentiments on this and I see no reason why we should not do something to help both sectors have fair access to political office .

I think there are barriers to entering politics. Note - I am wholly opposed to there being such a thing as a political 'career'. I think to be truly representative TDs need to be people who live an ordinary life, and devote 5-10 years of their life to public life and then return to their ordinary life. I think a career politicians, especially politicians from dynasties is intensely anti-democratic and and anti-republican and should be systematically resisted.

All that said, I don't think women face any exceptional barriers on the basis of their gender. If anything, given female over-representation in teaching roles they have much more of a platform to dabble in party politics than men do. A man and a woman in a PAYE role have equal chance - **** and all.

Yourself isit

marienbad wrote: »

So you concede the point that women are restricted to entering a career in politics then ? Just less restricted than PAYE workers ?

I happen to agree with your sentiments on this and I see no reason why we should not do something to help both sectors have fair access to political office .

You've done this before. Those of us arguing against quotas will bring in the PAYE sector as an example of an unrepresented group, but we are not arguing for quotas but against them.

Professor Moriarty

Sand wrote: »

Oh, I understand (and disagree with) you, I just thought it amusing that someone advocating gender quotas to combat discrimination would so clearly link women with pregnancy/child rearing. To the exclusion of men who apparently have no insight on children or their care. Like I said, a very 1950s attitude.

I can understand why you did it to, because apart from that men and women live broadly the same experience - there is no other distinction worth mentioning between male and female TDs who are overwhelmingly teachers, lawyers, accountants, company directors, farmers and so on but not PAYE workers. If you didn't talk about pregnancy and childbirth which is a biological female experience...what else do you have?

And lets face it, we do not elect our TDs because of their broad experience or knowledge. TDs legislate on matters with which they have no experience or knowledge of and this is accepted as a matter of course. Why is more important to have hands on experience when it comes to legislating for child birth than for example crime or social media or copyright law?

Of course women can and should contribute to political life, but they already can. They face no barriers to entry that men do not face. They offer no "secret knowledge" that is handed down from mother to daughter like some ancient female cult. They are people, just like other people. Some of them are good, some of them are bad. Some of them are wise, some of them are eejits. Women face no notable barriers to entering into political life in 2016 if that is what they wish to pursue.

If statistical anomalies are the enemy, then the massive over-representation of teachers, farmers and 'professionals' is much more of an issue than gender. A male and female TD who are qualified lawyers will have far more in common with each other than they ever would with a PAYE worker. Its got to the extent where TDs need focus groups and polls to understand the people they are supposed to represent.

Your post is full of mistakes and erroneous assumptions again. Here, let me help:

someone advocating gender quotas - At your leisure, please do quote the post where I advocated quotas.

to combat discrimination would so clearly link women with pregnancy/child rearing - So you wouldn't link women with pregnancy and child rearing? Very strange.

To the exclusion of men who apparently have no insight on children or their care - At your leisure, please do quote where I said men have no insight into child care.


Now, I'll assume you are going to drop the straw men arguments and misrepresentation.

Your point about PAYE workers is a fair one but how do you overcome it? Perhaps legislate so that public servants cannot automatically get their jobs back after being TDs? Or pay an employer to hire temporary staff while a PAYE worker is in the Dáil?

If you believe that women "face no barriers to entry that men don't face", how do you explain their underrepresentation in politics?

marienbad

Yourself isit wrote: »

You've done this before. Those of us arguing against quotas will bring in the PAYE sector as an example of an unrepresented group, but we are not arguing for quotas but against them.

Do what before ?

I have already said that I consider quotas a blunt instrument .but when all else fails sometimes they are the only option left

I have no problem with quotas to get more PAYE workers more represented if that is what it takes . I fully agree with Sand on the over representation of certain professions and families , and to rub salt into the wounds half of them are on 'leave of absence ' from Public sector jobs

marienbad

Sand wrote: »

I think there are barriers to entering politics. Note - I am wholly opposed to there being such a thing as a political 'career'. I think to be truly representative TDs need to be people who live an ordinary life, and devote 5-10 years of their life to public life and then return to their ordinary life. I think a career politicians, especially politicians from dynasties is intensely anti-democratic and and anti-republican and should be systematically resisted.

All that said, I don't think women face any exceptional barriers on the basis of their gender. If anything, given female over-representation in teaching roles they have much more of a platform to dabble in party politics than men do. A man and a woman in a PAYE role have equal chance - **** and all.

So we can agree that women DO face barriers to entering politics - you think they are not exceptional barriers ,but barriers none the less .

That is all I am arguing .

Sand

marienbad wrote: »

So we can agree that women DO face barriers to entering politics - you think they are not exceptional barriers ,but barriers none the less .

That is all I am arguing .

I think people do face barriers to entering politics. I think gender quotas is a swing and a miss at those barriers. I also think it presumes those barriers can be fixed. They may not be fixable.

marienbad

Sand wrote: »

I think people do face barriers to entering politics. I think gender quotas is a swing and a miss at those barriers. I also think it presumes those barriers can be fixed. They may not be fixable.

It is not just people though Sand , if we are to have meaningful change we have to break it down even further , women ,PAYE, minorities etc .

And in the end it may not be fixable but we should at least try . At the moment it is just an old boys club with a few tokens here and there , certainly in the two largest parties .

Sand

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Your post is full of mistakes and erroneous assumptions again. Here, let me help:

someone advocating gender quotas - At your leisure, please do quote the post where I advocated quotas.

So we agree there is no call for gender quotas. Great, discussion concluded.

to combat discrimination would so clearly link women with pregnancy/child rearing - So you wouldn't link women with pregnancy and child rearing? Very strange.

No more than men - only Our Lady Mary has managed to defy biology and self fertilise.

To the exclusion of men who apparently have no insight on children or their care - At your leisure, please do quote where I said men have no insight into child care.

Of course you haven't, so we agree women offer no exceptional insight into pregnancy or child-rearing that cant be covered by a man.

Now, I'll assume you are going to drop the straw men arguments and misrepresentation.

Yes, you clearly do not disagree with me on any any point and we agree there is no need for gender quotas so there's not much to discuss.

Your point about PAYE workers is a fair one but how do you overcome it? Perhaps legislate so that public servants cannot automatically get their jobs back after being TDs? Or pay an employer to hire temporary staff while a PAYE worker is in the Dáil?

If you believe that women "face no barriers to entry that men don't face", how do you explain their underrepresentation in politics?

Again, you are presuming it can be 'fixed'. Maybe it cant, at least not without breaking other aspects of our view of ourselves and fairness. Maybe politics will always be the preserve of the very rich or the very poor, and the aspirational middle class struggling to keep their heads above water can only hope that their political classes are held to account and forced to do their business openly, and their media is factual and honest so that they can back or punish the politicians representing them in the 30 minutes or so they can spare to vote. More importantly so that the aspects of government they *dont* elect (such as the civil service) as held to account.

Personally, my priority would be to improve the mechanics of governance and how policies are evidenced and reached rather than demand the genitalia of those involved mirror the genitalia of those governed.

Sand

marienbad wrote: »

It is not just people though Sand , if we are to have meaningful change we have to break it down even further , women ,PAYE, minorities etc .

And in the end it may not be fixable but we should at least try . At the moment it is just an old boys club with a few tokens here and there , certainly in the two largest parties .

I dont think the people comprising the system are important. I think people are equally virtuous and compromised in their own way. I am a firm believer that the system of governance has to be very carefully designed to accentuate the best of people, and limit the worst regardless of who is in power. People rarely recognise that democracy and liberty are opposed. Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, liberty is the freedom of the individual.

Politics used to be done in public spaces, now its hidden away in back offices and we require media to inform us and advise us on what happened and who to believe. Its much more important that governance is done openly regardless of who is doing it. Because the Dail is never going to be balanced and fully representative of every group that makes up the Irish people.

Professor Moriarty

Sand wrote: »

So we agree there is no call for gender quotas. Great, discussion concluded.



No more than men - only Our Lady Mary has managed to defy biology and self fertilise.



Of course you haven't, so we agree women offer no exceptional insight into pregnancy or child-rearing that cant be covered by a man.




Yes, you clearly do not disagree with me on any any point and we agree there is no need for gender quotas so there's not much to discuss.



Again, you are presuming it can be 'fixed'. Maybe it cant, at least not without breaking other aspects of our view of ourselves and fairness. Maybe politics will always be the preserve of the very rich or the very poor, and the aspirational middle class struggling to keep their heads above water can only hope that their political classes are held to account and forced to do their business openly, and their media is factual and honest so that they can back or punish the politicians representing them in the 30 minutes or so they can spare to vote. More importantly so that the aspects of government they *dont* elect (such as the civil service) as held to account.

Personally, my priority would be to improve the mechanics of governance and how policies are evidenced and reached rather than demand the genitalia of those involved mirror the genitalia of those governed.

There you go again. Straw men all over the place. But you already know that.


You said:
Noting that female politicians aren't doing notably better than male politicians isnt an endorsement of male politicians. It's just noting there is no obvious dividend from having more women in positions of power.


To which I replied:
One half of the population would be represented by more people who understand what is like to be a woman. For instance, issues to do with pregnancy and maternity would be better understood by legislators. That's a notable dividend.


You were wrong.

Since then you've constantly misrepresented me to deflect away from the fact that you were proven wrong. Look, if it's that hard for you to be wrong, you 'win'. I genuinely hope that makes you feel better.

I also note that you ignored my question as to why women might be underrepresented in politics. That's ok too.

Sand

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You were wrong.

Since then you've constantly misrepresented me to deflect away from the fact that you were proven wrong. Look, if it's that hard for you to be wrong, you 'win'. I genuinely hope that makes you feel better.

I also note that you ignored my question as to why women might be underrepresented in politics. That's ok too.

That's a pretty big misrepresentation of my position to be fair.

marienbad

Sand wrote: »

I dont think the people comprising the system are important. I think people are equally virtuous and compromised in their own way. I am a firm believer that the system of governance has to be very carefully designed to accentuate the best of people, and limit the worst regardless of who is in power. People rarely recognise that democracy and liberty are opposed. Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, liberty is the freedom of the individual.

Politics used to be done in public spaces, now its hidden away in back offices and we require media to inform us and advise us on what happened and who to believe. Its much more important that governance is done openly regardless of who is doing it. Because the Dail is never going to be balanced and fully representative of every group that makes up the Irish people.

This may all be true Sand but if we are just to have 'snouts in the trough' 'smoke filled rooms ' or whatever cliché we use our first priority should be to have every sector of society represented fairly at that trough .

There is loads of things we should be doing , not just quotas , fixed term , list systems , paid sabbaticals , all should be looked at .

But right now the majority within the political classes have no interest in change , so it may have to be forced on them

ahnowbrowncow

marienbad wrote: »

This may all be true Sand but if we are just to have 'snouts in the trough' 'smoke filled rooms ' or whatever cliché we use our first priority should be to have every sector of society represented fairly at that trough .

There is loads of things we should be doing , not just quotas , fixed term , list systems , paid sabbaticals , all should be looked at .

But right now the majority within the political classes have no interest in change , so it may have to be forced on them

Why start with the nuclear option first? What other options have been implemented to exhaustion to try get women involved in politics before resorting to discrimination?

Professor Moriarty

Well, I don't think I've misrepresented your position but let us just leave the pettiness there. I'm genuinely interested in your opinion as to why women are currently so underrepresented in the Dail?

marienbad

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Why start with the nuclear option first? What other options have been implemented to exhaustion to try get women involved in politics before resorting to discrimination?

The nuclear option ? seriously ? Do you think Catholics in Northern Ireland would have reached proportionate levels without a similar system , or people of colour in the USA ?

The Dail and political parties have had decades to bring in change and nothing happened .

And we are where we are we are because of discrimination , why was that OK and it is not now to correct the situation ?

K-9

Wait a second Sand, are you arguing pregnancy is the same for men and women?

Sand

K-9 wrote: »

Wait a second Sand, are you arguing pregnancy is the same for men and women?

I'm saying we accept legislators don't necessarily need personal experience of what they are legislating on. That is accepted as a given. Why is pregnancy an exception?

ahnowbrowncow

marienbad wrote: »

The nuclear option ? seriously ? Do you think Catholics in Northern Ireland would have reached proportionate levels without a similar system , or people of colour in the USA ?

The Dail and political parties have had decades to bring in change and nothing happened .

And we are where we are we are because of discrimination , why was that OK and it is not now to correct the situation ?

It wasn't OK then and it isn't now but you seem to think that because it happened in the past it is acceptable to happen now, terrible logic.

And I'll ask again, what other options/initiatives/plans have been implemented to increase female participation in politics before resorting to discrimination?

Sand

marienbad wrote: »

This may all be true Sand but if we are just to have 'snouts in the trough' 'smoke filled rooms ' or whatever cliché we use our first priority should be to have every sector of society represented fairly at that trough .

There is loads of things we should be doing , not just quotas , fixed term , list systems , paid sabbaticals , all should be looked at .

But right now the majority within the political classes have no interest in change , so it may have to be forced on them

That's a swing and a miss though. The gender of the people with their snouts in the trough is irrelevant. The idea that the trough is there at all is the problem.

There will be slightly more female teachers, doctors, lawyers and farmers in the Dail under gender discrimination. That's no advance on there being slightly more male teachers, doctors, lawyers and farmers. An rugger lawyer/SWP activist and a struggling coping class person have nothing in common regardless of their genitalia.

marienbad

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

It wasn't OK then and it isn't now but you seem to think that because it happened in the past it is acceptable to happen now, terrible logic.

And I'll ask again, what other options/initiatives/plans have been implemented to increase female participation in politics before resorting to discrimination?

Logic doesn't enter in to it , pragmatism does . Do you think the PSNI would have employed more Catholics without legislation ?

Sand

marienbad wrote: »

I have no problem with quotas to get more PAYE workers more represented if that is what it takes

Lets say there was a quota saying 50% of candidates had to be PAYE private sector workers.

Where would they find the PAYE workers who would agree to be those candidates? The issue is not that PAYE workers are being beaten away from party politics with sticks and PAYE workers have to be bussed in to Party HQ under armed guard likes its 1950s Alabama. Its that its not realistic for a PAYE worker to suspend their career and devote the months/years it takes to build up a voter base and profile that makes a political run worthwhile and where they will almost certainly fail unless they are lucky enough to have the right surname. They opt out because of the challenges they face and the demands of political activity - we have representative democracy because we want someone else to act on our behalf because our daily challenges prevent us from doing so.

marienbad

Sand wrote: »

Lets say there was a quota saying 50% of candidates had to be PAYE private sector workers.

Where would they find the PAYE workers who would agree to be those candidates? The issue is not that PAYE workers are being beaten away from party politics with sticks and PAYE workers have to be bussed in to Party HQ under armed guard likes its 1950s Alabama. Its that its not realistic for a PAYE worker to suspend their career and devote the months/years it takes to build up a voter base and profile that makes a political run worthwhile and where they will almost certainly fail unless they are lucky enough to have the right surname. They opt out because of the challenges they face and the demands of political activity - we have representative democracy because we want someone else to act on our behalf because our daily challenges prevent us from doing so.

A representative democracy by definition should aspire to be a mirror of the society from which it comes .

And just because it is incredible difficult to devise a system to enable PAYE workers to stand is no reason not to devise a system for other under represented groups to stand .

Professor Moriarty

This question is being ignored for some puzzling reason. If there are no barriers to women entering politics, why isn't the Dail split 50/50 between women and men? Anyone?

Sand

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This question is being ignored for some puzzling reason. If there are no barriers to women entering politics, why isn't the Dail split 50/50 between women and men? Anyone?

Probably for the same reason bin collectors aren't 50% female, or why primary teaching is overwhelmingly female (87%) despite there being no barriers to entry in either career to men or women. Figure out why that happens and you'll have your answer.

Professor Moriarty

Sand wrote:

Probably for the same reason bin collectors aren't 50% female, or why primary teaching is overwhelmingly female (87%) despite there being no barriers to entry in either career to men or women. Figure out why that happens and you'll have your answer.

So, still no answer to my question. I wonder why.

Zulu

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So, still no answer to my question. I wonder why.

He gave you an answer, you just didn't like it.

As many women aren't entering politics for various reasons. I'd suggest the hours might be one.
Now I hope your not going to tell me that that's "anti family" and therefore disproportionately affecting women, then suggest quotas are a solution to this.

Count Dooku

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This question is being ignored for some puzzling reason. If there are no barriers to women entering politics, why isn't the Dail split 50/50 between women and men? Anyone?

Because people are more interesting by economy rather than implementing various SJW ideas

oscarBravo

Sand wrote: »

Lets say there was a quota saying 50% of candidates had to be PAYE private sector workers.

Where would they find the PAYE workers who would agree to be those candidates? The issue is not that PAYE workers are being beaten away from party politics with sticks and PAYE workers have to be bussed in to Party HQ under armed guard likes its 1950s Alabama. Its that its not realistic for a PAYE worker to suspend their career and devote the months/years it takes to build up a voter base and profile that makes a political run worthwhile and where they will almost certainly fail unless they are lucky enough to have the right surname. They opt out because of the challenges they face and the demands of political activity - we have representative democracy because we want someone else to act on our behalf because our daily challenges prevent us from doing so.

So we shrug, and say there's nothing we can do, so we'll just have to do nothing and accept that the system is set up to ensure that only certain classes of people get to run for office.

But let's follow your thought experiment through: what would happen if political parties were faced with the challenge of making running for elected office attractive for ordinary PAYE workers? To start with, the parties would approach some of these workers, but be rebuffed on the basis that the barriers were too high. What choice would the parties have but to lobby government to make whatever changes are necessary to overcome those barriers?

Professor Moriarty

Zulu wrote: »

He gave you an answer, you just didn't like it.

As many women aren't entering politics for various reasons. I'd suggest the hours might be one.
Now I hope your not going to tell me that that's "anti family" and therefore disproportionately affecting women, then suggest quotas are a solution to this.

No he didn't. Just more straw men.

I'll ask you:
(A) Do you think there are barriers to women entering politics?
(B) If so, what are they?
(C) If you don't think there are barriers, why are there relatively few women in the Dáil?

Professor Moriarty

Count Dooku wrote: »

Because people are more interesting by economy rather than implementing various SJW ideas

Which people? What SJW ideas? Is equality of opportunity a "SJW" idea?

Zulu

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No he didn't. Just more straw men.

I'll ask you:
(A) Do you think there are barriers to women entering politics?
(B) If so, what are they?
(C) If you don't think there are barriers, why are there relatively few women in the Dáil?

(A) Yes, the same barriers that apply to all individuals. I don't perceive them to be gender specific.
(B) They are numerous and I'm not keen to attempt to create an exhaustive list here. Why aren't you a politician? I'm not one because I have a mortgage and two children, I'm not about to throw away a salary at the risk of not being elected. I would suggest that they logic applies to most other people aswell.
(C) There are relatively few women in the Dail because few women ran for election.

Why did few women run for election? Is it:
A) they didn't want to, or
because they are being actively oppressed from running.

I say A). and I don't have a problem with that. I DO have a problem with people treating women like incapable beings that need to be supported because of their gender. I've far more respect for woman that that. I also have a massive problem with people introducing gender discrimination into a system.

Frankly gender discrimination disgusts me and the overt creation of it and the assault on the democratic process that has taken place is shocking.

Since I answered your questions, perhaps you'd answer mine:

Q) Why do you feel that a man cannot represent the interests of a woman?

Professor Moriarty

Zulu wrote: »

(A) Yes, the same barriers that apply to all individuals. I don't perceive them to be gender specific.
(B) They are numerous and I'm not keen to attempt to create an exhaustive list here. Why aren't you a politician? I'm not one because I have a mortgage and two children, I'm not about to throw away a salary at the risk of not being elected. I would suggest that they logic applies to most other people aswell.
(C) There are relatively few women in the Dail because few women ran for election.

Why did few women run for election? Is it:
A) they didn't want to, or
because they are being actively oppressed from running.

I say A). and I don't have a problem with that. I DO have a problem with people treating women like incapable beings that need to be supported because of their gender. I've far more respect for woman that that. I also have a massive problem with people introducing gender discrimination into a system.

Frankly gender discrimination disgusts me and the overt creation of it and the assault on the democratic process that has taken place is shocking.

Since I answered your questions, perhaps you'd answer mine:

Q) Why do you feel that a man cannot represent the interests of a woman?

So there are no gender specific barriers to women entering politics? I disagree. I think there are. Pregnancy being one, as a male cannot get pregnant. Another is child care. Usually, the mother is the primary care-giver in families. Because this is usual, it means that women find it harder to enter politics.

These straw men really are tiresome. I never said that a man cannot represent the interests of a woman. However, as I've said previously, on balance women will understand issues to do with women, e.g. pregnancy and mat leave, simply because many women who enter politics will have experienced such issues.

FreudianSlippers

Zulu wrote: »

Q) Why do you feel that a man cannot represent the interests of a woman?

I would basically answer this by saying: historical treatment of women in terms of suffrage, discrimination, control of their own body... 8th amendment *mic drop*

I'm not saying a man can't represent women - I like to think that I'd be able to - but historically they have been pretty poor.

Lemming

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I would basically answer this by saying: historical treatment of women in terms of suffrage, discrimination, control of their own body... 8th amendment *mic drop*

Suffrage; I love when this one gets brought up. I really do. What you'll find is that some women got suffrage before some men, and all women got suffrage at the same time as all men. People make this argument looking at the past through a modern lens. Back when the notion of universal suffrage was introduced, basic working rights that we have taken for granted for generations were either in their infancy as law or didn't even exist. State Welfare? Well the less said about that the better, especially in Ireland's case where the church was also involved ... It can be argued that for some, "old habits die hard" and there's been more than enough discrimination to go around, but suffrage? Doesn't belong in the same sentence.

as for the 8th; most of the vigorously anti-abortion folks I've ever had the displeasure to meet have had the sole common denominator of being staunchly Catholic or conservative-religiously minded at any rate; gender was not so much of a noted denominator line ...

I'm not saying a man can't represent women - I like to think that I'd be able to - but historically they have been pretty poor.

Historically, human rights and the like are not that old as concepts ...We as a race have been pretty sh1t at treating each other with any sense of compassion or dignity before the 20th century

Zulu

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So there are no gender specific barriers to women entering politics? I disagree. I think there are. Pregnancy being one, as a male cannot get pregnant.

Can a pregnant women not represent the society she is part of? Why not??
I've no issue voting for a woman - pregnant or not. Do you? Is there a law blocking pregnant women?? You'll need to expand.

Another is child care. Usually, the mother is the primary care-giver in families.

Child care applies equally to men. There are mothers and fathers in politics presently.

These straw men really are tiresome.

Your defacto excuse is really getting tiresome.

I never said that a man cannot represent the interests of a woman.

You didn't but it's the obvious extension to your argument. If men could represent women, then the gender of the representative does not matter.

However, as I've said previously, on balance women will understand issues to do with women, e.g. pregnancy and mat leave, simply because many women who enter politics will have experienced such issues.

BS. And frankly offensive BS at that. As a self employed father of two children, how dare you suggest that I can't understand issues like pregnancy and maternity leave. And what gives you the right to determine that I don't appreciate these issues? Your genitals?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I would basically answer this by saying: historical treatment of women in terms of suffrage, discrimination, control of their own body... 8th amendment *mic drop*

Sweet baby jesus. Are you suggesting that abortion is men vs women? That's just kool-aid buddy.

I'm not saying a man can't represent women - I like to think that I'd be able to - but historically they have been pretty poor.

This is a very poorly thought through argument to make. It wasn't the women that were sent to be slaughtered at an industrial scale in the early part of the 20th century. Has you move back the generations, people were treated poorly. ...and it was really more of a class struggle if you are honest about it.

K-9

Zulu wrote: »

He gave you an answer, you just didn't like it.

As many women aren't entering politics for various reasons. I'd suggest the hours might be one.
Now I hope your not going to tell me that that's "anti family" and therefore disproportionately affecting women, then suggest quotas are a solution to this.

Well women still do more house keeping type work and generally are the main care giver for children. It has changed a lot from 30 years ago but that imbalance is still there.

Professor Moriarty

Zulu wrote: »

Can a pregnant women not represent the society she is part of? Why not??
I've no issue voting for a woman - pregnant or not. Do you? Is there a law blocking pregnant women?? You'll need to expand.

Child care applies equally to men. There are mothers and fathers in politics presently.

Your defacto excuse is really getting tiresome.
You didn't but it's the obvious extension to your argument. If men could represent women, then the gender of the representative does not matter.
BS. And frankly offensive BS at that. As a self employed father of two children, how dare you suggest that I can't understand issues like pregnancy and maternity leave. And what gives you the right to determine that I don't appreciate these issues? Your genitals?

Sweet baby jesus. Are you suggesting that abortion is men vs women? That's just kool-aid buddy.

This is a very poorly thought through argument to make. It wasn't the women that were sent to be slaughtered at an industrial scale in the early part of the 20th century. Has you move back the generations, people were treated poorly. ...and it was really more of a class struggle if you are honest about it.

Jeez. A lot of righteous indignation there. You seem stressed. Relax, it's Christmas. Also, words like 'BS', 'kool-aid' and 'buddy' make you sound like an Internet warrior.

Again, another straw man. I never suggested you couldn't understand such issues. Read what I said carefully and you won't feel offended.

Anyway. Let's look at this scenario. A man and a woman want to enter politics. They also want to have children. Considering a woman will get pregnant and give birth, who has the bigger decision to make in that context?

If I have experienced pregnancy and childbirth and you have not, which of us is more likely to have insight into pregnancy and childbirth?

oscarBravo

Zulu wrote: »

If men could represent women, then the gender of the representative does not matter.

You can make that argument for any under-represented group. If self-employed businessmen and public servants on career breaks can represent the interests of the average PAYE worker, then it doesn't matter that there are systemic barriers to entry for ordinary PAYE workers.

For that matter, if rich landowners can represent everybody's interests, then it's fine if the only people who can stand for election are rich landowners.

Nobody's arguing that any given man can't represent women's interests, but it should be self-evident that a more representative parliament is better than a less representative one.

marienbad

oscarBravo wrote: »

You can make that argument for any under-represented group. If self-employed businessmen and public servants on career breaks can represent the interests of the average PAYE worker, then it doesn't matter that there are systemic barriers to entry for ordinary PAYE workers.

For that matter, if rich landowners can represent everybody's interests, then it's fine if the only people who can stand for election are rich landowners.

Nobody's arguing that any given man can't represent women's interests, but it should be self-evident that a more representative parliament is better than a less representative one.

Exactly mon frère ,If not why not just go back to a King and his Privy councillors ? They can represent the serfs perfectly well

Zulu

marienbad wrote: »

Exactly mon frère ,If not why not just go back to a King and his Privy councillors ? They can represent the serfs perfectly well

Because a king has subjects. They dont represent the populous.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You can make that argument for any under-represented group.

Yes you can. And it's valid. What's so special about women?

If self-employed businessmen and public servants on career breaks can represent the interests of the average PAYE worker, then it doesn't matter that there are systemic barriers to entry for ordinary PAYE workers.

I didn't say it did.

Nobody's arguing that any given man can't represent women's interests, but it should be self-evident that a more representative parliament is better than a less representative one.

How is it self-evident - without the assumption that a man can't represent a woman.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Jeez. A lot of righteous indignation there. You seem stressed....

Patronise? Ok. :rolleyes:

Anyway. Let's look at this scenario. A man and a woman want to enter politics. They also want to have children. Considering a woman will get pregnant and give birth, who has the bigger decision to make in that context?

Explain the "bigger decision" here. A women will need to give birth if she want to have a child (save adoption). That's nature. What of it? Its not stopping her getting into politics if that's her motivation. And besides thats modern life - the same can be said of every mother in every career.

If I have experienced pregnancy and childbirth and you have not, which of us is more likely to have insight into pregnancy and childbirth?

Which can be said of nearly everything every politician is party to making a decision on. That's how it works. Really pregnancy and childbirth - thats your silver bullet? Try harder.

marienbad

Zulu wrote: »

Yes you can. And it's valid. What's so special about women?
I didn't say it did.

.

So if you accept it is valid why are you arguing against it ?

Because women get jumped ahead of the queue or what ?

FreudianSlippers

Lemming wrote: »

Suffrage; I love when this one gets brought up. I really do. What you'll find is that some women got suffrage before some men, and all women got suffrage at the same time as all men. People make this argument looking at the past through a modern lens. Back when the notion of universal suffrage was introduced, basic working rights that we have taken for granted for generations were either in their infancy as law or didn't even exist. State Welfare? Well the less said about that the better, especially in Ireland's case where the church was also involved ... It can be argued that for some, "old habits die hard" and there's been more than enough discrimination to go around, but suffrage? Doesn't belong in the same sentence.

as for the 8th; most of the vigorously anti-abortion folks I've ever had the displeasure to meet have had the sole common denominator of being staunchly Catholic or conservative-religiously minded at any rate; gender was not so much of a noted denominator line ...




Historically, human rights and the like are not that old as concepts ...We as a race have been pretty sh1t at treating each other with any sense of compassion or dignity before the 20th century

So your argument is that white men have been ****ty to everyone... get over it?

Zulu

marienbad wrote: »

Because women get jumped ahead of the queue or what ?

Exactly. People should be equal. People should have equal opportunities. Introducing gender based discrimination is abhorrent to that.

FreudianSlippers

Zulu wrote: »

Sweet baby jesus. Are you suggesting that abortion is men vs women? That's just kool-aid buddy.

I'm like a thousand percent sure I didn't say that or imply it.

I also was entirely unaware this was a "men vs women" argument?

This is a very poorly thought through argument to make. It wasn't the women that were sent to be slaughtered at an industrial scale in the early part of the 20th century. Has you move back the generations, people were treated poorly. ...and it was really more of a class struggle if you are honest about it.

Woah. Pot calling the kettle black a bit here.

Your whole reasoning here is totally fallacious. Again, the notion that because bad things happened to lots of people doesn't mean each of those individual things were not bad.

Zulu

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

white men

:rolleyes:
You know this is Ireland, right?

FreudianSlippers

Zulu wrote: »

Exactly. People should be equal. People should have equal opportunities. Introducing gender based discrimination is abhorrent to that.

Are you sure you mean "abhorrent"? I could understand someone disagreeing with the idea or thinking it is counter-intuitive, but abhorrent seems like you fundamentally find the idea of an attempt to equalise representation to be disgusting.

marienbad

Zulu wrote: »

Exactly. People should be equal. People should have equal opportunities. Introducing gender based discrimination is abhorrent to that.

But this just doesn't make sense , if there are systemic barriers to any group then they must be removed . How can you argue with that ?

Now if you want to argue that women are queue jumping ahead of other disadvantaged groups ,yeah fine lets have that discussion , I probably wouldn't disagree with you , but lets not pretend there are no barriers .

Jaggo

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So there are no gender specific barriers to women entering politics? I disagree. I think there are. Pregnancy being one, as a male cannot get pregnant. Another is child care. Usually, the mother is the primary care-giver in families. Because this is usual, it means that women find it harder to enter politics.

Well leinster house has some of the best and cheapest child care facilities in the country, so if your logic holds true, and lack of child care is truly a barrier to entry, there should be a disproportionate number of women TDs.

On saying that, I think there should be quotas. Two reasons: 1. the system we have has produced a very small cadre of men or women who enter the political system (with a number of exceptions, we tend to get the "funeral attending" extremely personable, local TDs rather then statesmen types. This is a function of our local system of constituencies, rather then anything else.) Something that breaks this can only be the positive.
2. I also think that in a democracy the appearance of equality is not that much less important then actual equality. In that huffington post article, the belief of women that they faced discrimination was the deterrent rather then actual discrimination. A few elections under a quota system should go along way to breaking that down.

The quota system I would introduce (not fully thought through) would be that each constituency would have to have at least one female TD. IE. In a 4 seater constituency, if the first 3 seats went to men, the last seat would go to the highest female candidate in the race.
Benefits - the would be a minimum of 25% women in the Dail.
Parties would realise that by clever candidate selection they could gain a disproportionate number of TDs for a certain percentage of the poll. The threat of this would mean that all parties would do a proper candidate selection, including a higher percentage of women to avoid losing seats to the quota system. So we could in theory, we could improve candidate selection, improve the quality of our TDs, and get a few extra women in the Dail.

All sorted there, I presume we can close the thread now.

K-9

Childcare in the Dail probably isn't much use if you are from Donegal or Kerry or indeed most counties.