Gender quotas and other other positive discriminations

Zulu

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

... to be disgusting.

it is disgusting. Semantics.

Jaggo

K-9 wrote: »

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

As the TDs from Kerry/Donegal would have to live in Dublin for the days they are attending the Dail, the childcare in Dail would be the most important factor, No?

Anyway as the average age of the Dail is 50 years old, childcare isn't a significant factor in the gender ratios.

Professor Moriarty

Zulu wrote: »

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

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

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

Patronise? Ok. :rolleyes:

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.

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.

That was patronising, sincere apologies.

The logic is that a woman has to make a more difficult decision because of possible pregnancy. I'm simply trying to establish the principle that it is more difficult for women to enter politics than men. No point discussing what should be done about equality/quotas if people don't believe that there is pre-existing inequality of opportunity.

There are reasons why women are underrepresented in the Dáil. I think an interesting discussion could be had around that and I think that discussion symbolises a wider discussion on equality of opportunity across the spectrum of society.

Professor Moriarty

Jaggo wrote: »

As the TDs from Kerry/Donegal would have to live in Dublin for the days they are attending the Dail, the childcare in Dail would be the most important factor, No?

Anyway as the average age of the Dail is 50 years old, childcare isn't a significant factor in the gender ratios.

Did you know that a pregnant TD has to provide a sick note in order to give birth to her child? Have a read.

Lemming

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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

No.

looksee

From the first dail, the number of women elected to the dail was fewer than 6 at any election. This continued to 1981 when it pretty much doubled to 11 and so on in increasing numbers to the current situation where there are 35, or 22%. The total number of TDs varied so that the percentages are even more striking. The number being aimed for is 50% ish, so 22% is about half way there, and the numbers are increasing faster than they were at the start.

I don't really think there is any great drama about women in the dail, it is happening and time will sort out the whole situation.

I was brought up in the 50s to the understanding that while I had rights to an education, a job, and personal freedom, still there was the underlying social acceptance that women were homemakers and men were in charge. That was 30 years after the 1918 starting point - and it was in England but I rather think that the situation was much the same here, and probably lasted longer than in England.

Many of the men in the dail at the moment are from that demographic that expected to be in control and for women to be background support. In ten years or so most of the older ones will have filtered out and left room for younger people who have more flexible and equal ideas. Nothing is 100%, there will always be the stragglers who genuinely cannot understand the meaning of equality, or are afraid of it, but in general attitudes will change.

What should not happen is that women are artificially pushed into government to make up numbers. It is patronising and unnecessary.

Sand

oscarBravo wrote: »

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?

I think we have to focus on more pressing problems we can fix, rather than fixate on problems we cant.

Look at your PAYE example - you want political parties to engineer a scenario whereby PAYE workers commuting to office jobs in Dublin in extremely structured roles/working lives and who are struggling to keep the illusion of being middle class going will have the same sort free time and ability to opt out as teachers or lawyers. You're talking about achieving that sort of change for 60% plus of the working population. Even if that can be achieved (it cant, you're hugely underestimating the level of change required) what damage would it do in terms of competing priorities being shoved aside?

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*

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.

And yet it was stuffy old white male politicians that legislated for universal suffrage, against gender discrimination and for abortion *mic drop*.

K-9 wrote: »

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.

There's a similar imbalance in female representation in coal mining and bin collecting. Cherry picking statistics doesn't demonstrate any bias or barrier.

Also, you're linking women to children there. As pointed out later, the average TD is in their 50s. We are not talking about struggling 30 something parents juggling a career and their kids. PAYE workers just have to get the feck on with it.

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

If the ask is to perfectly mirror the governed, why not simply dispense with elections and just assign legislative duties similar to jury duty with citizens being compelled to attend and being disqualified until the remaining candidates mirror the last census?

marienbad wrote: »

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 .

What systematic barriers do women face to a life in politics in 2016 Ireland? Advocates of gender discrimination seem to skip this consistently...what actual law or custom prevents women from running for office based purely on their gender?

oscarBravo

Zulu wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

...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.

I'll wheel out my reductio ad absurdum tool again: we currently elect politicians from constituencies, so we have a cross-section of representatives from all parts of the country.

Let's imagine, instead, that we had a system where representatives could only be Protestant men in their twenties from Sligo.

The former is more representative of the electorate than the latter. Wouldn't you agree that it's self-evidently better?

Sand

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll wheel out my reductio ad absurdum tool again: we currently elect politicians from constituencies, so we have a cross-section of representatives from all parts of the country.

Let's imagine, instead, that we had a system where representatives could only be Protestant men in their twenties from Sligo.

The former is more representative of the electorate than the latter. Wouldn't you agree that it's self-evidently better?

No, not self-evidently. The Irish gaelic revival was led by protestant men who shared practically nothing with the Catholic Irish.

oscarBravo

Sand wrote: »

No, not self-evidently.

It's hard to see that as anything other than being argumentative for the sake of it, so I'll leave you to it.

K-9

Jaggo wrote: »

As the TDs from Kerry/Donegal would have to live in Dublin for the days they are attending the Dail, the childcare in Dail would be the most important factor, No?

Anyway as the average age of the Dail is 50 years old, childcare isn't a significant factor in the gender ratios.

Well unless a child goes to school in Donegal and Dublin...

Skommando

K-9 wrote: »

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.

why do you call it an "imbalance", why do you think one job is more important than the other ?

K-9

Skommando wrote: »

why do you call it an "imbalance", why do you think one job is more important than the other ?

Childcare more important than house keeping?

Skommando

K-9 wrote: »

Childcare more important than house keeping?

I suppose you thought that was a clever answer/dodge, couldn't even be honest about that could you . . . you've answered more than you think.

Ferrari3600

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll wheel out my reductio ad absurdum tool again: we currently elect politicians from constituencies, so we have a cross-section of representatives from all parts of the country.

Let's imagine, instead, that we had a system where representatives could only be Protestant men in their twenties from Sligo.

The former is more representative of the electorate than the latter. Wouldn't you agree that it's self-evidently better?

Of course not.

K-9

Skommando wrote: »

I suppose you thought that was a clever answer/dodge, couldn't even be honest about that could you . . . you've answered more than you think.

I don't have a clue what you are on about.

I've worked, was the main carer for my child and did most of the house work because, needs be. Didn't see any task as more important as the next.

It seems odd in this age of equality, women still do more house work and caring for the children.

Donnielighto

marienbad wrote: »

Here we have it in a nutshell .

Any takers anyone ?? Any proposal at all to eliminate the need for quotas ?

Anything ?

Other than gender what other quotas are you looking to apply, i want to give one suggestion that covers all.

Sand

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's hard to see that as anything other than being argumentative for the sake of it, so I'll leave you to it.

Well, you've not ventured as single opinion as to why its *better* to have TDs mirror the voter base. And I've already pointed out why its for all practical purposes impossible to achieve. So, its very gracious of you to acknowledge that the discussion is over.