Gender quotas and other other positive discriminations

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

If the parties are meant to be a source of barriers then why do women make up a greater proportion of party candidates than of independent candidates? This was true before any quotas were brought in too.

Quotas will work even if the parties are not the source of all or even any barriers.

If the parties can't get women to run because, say, the ladies jacks in Dail Eireann is too small, forcing the parties to run women will highlight this barrier, and guess what, the large parties are either in Government or propping it up - they can solve the problems if they have to, even if they did not cause them.

But as long as they don't have to, they won't - the current TDs have a strong incentive not to rock the boat, since a barrel of new women TDs must displace a bunch of the current crop.

Sand

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Could you think of any male politicians with whom you disapprove?

Well, it would be quicker to list the male politicians of whom I approve.

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.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Perhaps, then, we should try to remove barriers which currently discourage half the population from running, thereby losing perhaps 30% of the best candidates.

What barriers do women face in 2016 that are not faced by men?

If we are talking about groups who face barriers to entering a career in politics to my mind PAYE workers are much more restricted. I cant think of a single TD with a PAYE private sector career.

The Dail is infested with teachers, publicans, solicitors, auctioneers, doctors, accountants, farmers and company directors because their job can sustain a part time political career. The likes of George Lee can leave his public sector job, do a turn in the Dail, and then pick up 'his spot' again back in the public sector when he decides its not for him. No PAYE worker can hold down a 9-5 office job commuting from Meath, and do the work to build up the necessary profile to be a TD unless they somehow learn to function without sleep.

Professor Moriarty

Sand wrote: »

Well, it would be quicker to list the male politicians of whom I approve.

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.



What barriers do women face in 2016 that are not faced by men?

If we are talking about groups who face barriers to entering a career in politics to my mind PAYE workers are much more restricted. I cant think of a single TD with a PAYE private sector career.

The Dail is infested with teachers, publicans, solicitors, auctioneers, doctors, accountants, farmers and company directors because their job can sustain a part time political career. The likes of George Lee can leave his public sector job, do a turn in the Dail, and then pick up 'his spot' again back in the public sector when he decides its not for him. No PAYE worker can hold down a 9-5 office job commuting from Meath, and do the work to build up the necessary profile to be a TD unless they somehow learn to function without sleep.

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.

hognef

Zulu wrote: »

Thats just a little bit sexist, isnt it?

It's not. It's just an observation of the fact that people's interests and priorities depend on who those people are.

Zulu wrote: »

I take it you don't believe this is a conscious thing? Do you really think that our politicians only want to have male colleagues in their workplace?

No, i don't think it's conscious. But people tend to hire, elect and appoint people similar to themselves.

Zulu wrote: »

Aren't these inherited problems from previous generations? Much like the pension problem we are facing, unbroken tenure in the civil service, etc.?

Indeed they are. But that's no excuse for not trying (harder) to come up with solutions, as indeed they have in plenty of other jurisdictions.

Zulu wrote: »

I don't understand you point here tbh.

The point is simply that we have a relative lack of real family-oriented policies. And women tend to "suffer" disproportionately, as they are still much more likely to be the stay-at-home party, the one dropping off to and picking up from school, etc., and risk being discriminated against when seeking work, as they are likely to take time out on maternity leave.

Sand

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

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.

And women who have not had children, or who are barren are out of luck and have nothing insightful to add? A woman's contribution to the political process is measured by her ability to have children?

Not only do I not agree with you, but its ironically very 1950s of you.

Professor Moriarty

Sand wrote: »

And women who have not had children, or who are barren are out of luck and have nothing insightful to add? A woman's contribution to the political process is measured by her ability to have children?

Not only do I not agree with you, but its ironically very 1950s of you.

You've taken the highlighted parts and deliberately put them out of context. That's very disappointing. You know, it's ok to be given an answer that might contradict your point of view or prove you wrong. It helps a person to expand their mind.

Or maybe you're misunderstanding. Here, I'll break it down for you (without your highlighting):

One half of the population - females
would be represented by more people - more female TDs
who understand what is like to be a woman. - females understand what it's like to be female
For instance, - let me offer you an example of a way that might be helpful
issues to do with pregnancy and maternity - matters that affect females when having babies
would be better understood by legislators. - If more lawmakers are females then there is a better chance they will understand pregnancy and maternity
That's a notable dividend. - That's better for females.


Now, rather than deliberately trying to misrepresent me, why not address my point?

marienbad

Sand wrote: »

If we are talking about groups who face barriers to entering a career in politics to my mind PAYE workers are much more restricted. I cant think of a single TD with a PAYE private sector career.

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 .

Sand

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You've taken the highlighted parts and deliberately put them out of context. That's very disappointing. You know, it's ok to be given an answer that might contradict your point of view or prove you wrong. It helps a person to expand their mind.

Or maybe you're misunderstanding. Here, I'll break it down for you (without your highlighting):

One half of the population - females
would be represented by more people - more female TDs
who understand what is like to be a woman. - females understand what it's like to be female
For instance, - let me offer you an example of a way that might be helpful
issues to do with pregnancy and maternity - matters that affect females when having babies
would be better understood by legislators. - If more lawmakers are females then there is a better chance they will understand pregnancy and maternity
That's a notable dividend. - That's better for females.


Now, rather than deliberately trying to misrepresent me, why not address my point?

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 to justify a minimum quota. 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. People can vote for them, or not vote for them if they wish.

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.

Skommando

When is there going to be a call for gender quotas in all the dirty dangerous jobs like bin collection, sewerage works etc ?

Funny we don't see anyone calling for gender quotas or equality there.

Sand

Skommando wrote: »

When is there going to be a call for gender quotas in all the dirty dangerous jobs like bin collection, sewerage works etc ?

Funny we don't see anyone calling for gender quotas or equality there.

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?

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.