Women independents

goose2005

Silentcorner wrote: »

Would you have a problem with a quota of Catholics...or Scientologists, or deisel car drivers or cocaine users...anybody can run for public office as it stands...you wish to subvert the democratic process...so yes, people like you frighten me.

We already have strict geographic quotas, but no-one objects to them.

sabat

Oxfam’s Joanne O’Connor used their online calculator to figure out how much her unpaid work would be worth. She estimated it at €57,000 for about 5,700 hours’ work.

So this dictatorial quangista estimates that she does 109.6 hours of domestic work a week, or 15.6 hours every day on top of working a full time job, commuting, sleeping, leisure etc. :rolleyes:
I wonder if she, or indeed any of these women, has subcontracted out any of their "duties" such as cleaning, childcare etc to lower status women and whether they pay them €100 per hour...

Rodin

Wanting a "living wage" for feeding onesself?

The world's gone mad.

Rodin

KaneToad wrote: »

Neither do women. Maternity leave, on full pay, is granted to all Oireachtas members. Representatives can return to work after the leave has expired. They can't be discriminated against due to their absence.

They can be rejected at the ballot box by someone who wants their TD to be at work....

Silentcorner

goose2005 wrote: »

We already have strict geographic quotas, but no-one objects to them.

Do we...I thought we distribute seats on the basis of population.

KaneToad

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Additionally, a female politician will be less available to her constituents if she is trying to balance a political life with the role of a mother. Both are full time jobs in their own right.

What a sexist attitude you have. What about a male politician balancing his job and his role as a father. Or are you saying the role of the mother is more important??

MoonUnit75

KaneToad wrote: »

What a sexist attitude you have. What about a male politician balancing his job and his role as a father. Or are you saying the role of the mother is more important??

A recent scientific study concluded that men are grossly incompetent when it comes to lactating.

KaneToad

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

A recent scientific study concluded that men are grossly incompetent when it comes to lactating.

That's (partly) why the mother gets so much more paid time off.

MoonUnit75

KaneToad wrote: »

That's (partly) why the mother gets so much more paid time off.

You’ve answered your own question.

Kidchameleon

KaneToad wrote: »

What a sexist attitude you have. What about a male politician balancing his job and his role as a father. Or are you saying the role of the mother is more important??

A male is more inclined to go out and find resources whilst a female is more inclined to want to be with her child. That is not sexist, that is evolution. I would say fathers and mothers are equally important to a child.

KaneToad

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

A recent scientific study concluded that men are grossly incompetent when it comes to lactating.

- Not all females can lactate
- Not all children have a female parent as a caregiver
- Breast feeding isn't a prerequisite for a child

Lactation and otherwise is a red herring. Both parents (when they exist) are equally responsible for providing care for their child. Full on, time consuming careers and spending time with the children are not compatible. Choices need to be made. Gender shouldn't come into it.

MoonUnit75

KaneToad wrote: »

- Not all females can lactate
- Not all children have a female parent as a caregiver
- Breast feeding isn't a prerequisite for a child

Lactation and otherwise is a red herring. Both parents (when they exist) are equally responsible for providing care for their child. Full on, time consuming careers and spending time with the children are not compatible. Choices need to be made. Gender shouldn't come into it.

You’re talking about the outer edges of the curve. We should be looking at the mainstream if you want to make politics accessible to all. Do you think it’s more important to run for office or to breastfeed a child? There’s aspects of breastfeeding that are beneficial regardless of the nutrition it provides like parental bonding and lower rates of breast cancer. Men just can’t cut it when it comes to breastfeeding.

MoonUnit75

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

A recent scientific study concluded that men are grossly incompetent when it comes to lactating.

Boards is a repository of vital knowledge.

MoonUnit75

Deleted User wrote: »

Boards is a repository of vital knowledge.

I know, right? Amazeballs!

Fact still remains women outnumber men in ireland and last I checked a woman's vote is equal to a mans vote, so why aren't the approx 30% candidates getting elected, is it because women are more inclined to vote for men or is that a product of how women were put in their place by the men of that time and still think that way

MoonUnit75

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

You’re talking about the outer edges of the curve. We should be looking at the mainstream if you want to make politics accessible to all.

Except that it is accessible to all. It is their life choices that create difficulties.

In any case, it's suggested that a child should be exclusively breast fed for the first six months, and then a mix thereafter. In many cases, a mother loses the ability to breastfeed their child after the six month period.

Do you think it’s more important to run for office or to breastfeed a child?

I can see them doing both. Shocking isn't it?

Having a child is a choice, and they can leave the political circuit for a year to go through the initial period where breastfeeding is a requirement, and the subsequent change. Dropping out of the limelight for a year or two to have a child won't destroy their image, and frankly, is likely to benefit her political image in the long run.

Men just can’t cut it when it comes to breastfeeding.

But they can cut it when it comes to monitoring, looking after and raising a baby. Breast milk after (and during) the initial 6 month period, can be bottled and given to babies without the direct need of the breasts/nipples themselves. Many women have problems producing enough milk for their babies, or maintaining the ability to produce milk after birth.

Male politicians manage to have a family because they have a wife who is willing to shoulder that aspect of their lives. A female politician just needs to find a male who is interested in doing the same. Many males work from home these days, and it's simply a discussion/choice between a couple.

This easily fixed. Feeding rooms and a creche in the government area funded by the politicians who are interested in such services. Sorted.

Let be clear here. Politicians are people who have chosen not to live a normal life. The same can be said for CEO's or those in high-paced work environments. The problem is that many women are seeking access to those lifestyles while also demanding that they have a "normal" life too.

goose2005

Silentcorner wrote: »

Do we...I thought we distribute seats on the basis of population.

potato, potahto.

Kidchameleon

Deleted User wrote: »

and they can leave the political circuit for a year to go through the initial period where breastfeeding is a requirement, and the subsequent change. Dropping out of the limelight for a year or two to have a child won't destroy their image, and frankly, is likely to benefit her political image in the long run.

This is completely wrong. Leave any career for a year and you will fall behind your competitors. Its a career, not a charity, it wont wait for you. Most women have babies, all men do not. Therefore you will see more men getting ahead in their careers. It is not sexism, "barriers" or patriarchy. It is the choices women make that result in more men getting ahead.

kowloon

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Get a cleaner. Best 50 notes a week you’ll spend.

I like your enthusiasm, would you also be able to do light gardening?

Kidchameleon

Kidchameleon wrote: »

This is completely wrong.

Hardly... I've been a manager in three different companies before I left finance to be a lecturer.. I know how a woman's career can be affected by her pregnancy or maternity leave. Better yet, I've known women whose career wasn't affected by their pregnancy or maternity leave because they managed their time and priorities better.

Leave any career for a year and you will fall behind your competitors. Its a career, not a charity, it wont wait for you. Most women have babies, all men do not. Therefore you will see more men getting ahead in their careers. It is not sexism, "barriers" or patriarchy. It is the choices women make that result in more men getting ahead.

Or more women getting ahead. true enough. It's a choice.

At the same time though, a politician is not campaigning for votes or support every day of the week, or even every year for that matter. A woman can leave the active part of her career for 6 months to deal with the birth and breastfeeding, and be back again, to work within a relatively short period of time. (if she even bothers with it, which many women in the US and other countries don't... )

And the idea of men getting ahead while the woman is out on maternity is a very lukewarm idea and highly dependent on the industry or type of work. The problem is when the female returns and is still distracted or have a lack of focus on their work... leaving early to see the kids, going to teacher/parents meetings, etc. They're not focused on their careers anymore, so those who are, can better them.

Kidchameleon

Deleted User wrote: »

Better yet, I've known women whose career wasn't affected by their pregnancy or maternity leave because they managed their time and priorities better.

And I have known men who are stay at home fathers who's wife's bring in the bacon. There are exceptions to every rule.

Deleted User wrote: »

At the same time though, a politician is not campaigning for votes or support every day of the week, or even every year for that matter.

Of course not. But they are working flat out to deal with their constituents needs. In general, a woman with small children is FAR less likely to work a 60 hour week or even a 40 hour week for that matter. One of the key predictors of career success in any field is hours worked.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/03/14/chapter-6-time-in-work-and-leisure-patterns-by-gender-and-family-structure/

Kidchameleon

Kidchameleon wrote: »

And I have known men who are stay at home fathers who's wife's bring in the bacon. There are exceptions to every rule.

Sure, there are but you're shifting goalposts, since we were talking about women. What about countries that don't provide extensive maternity leave but they manage to have both a career and a family?

It's more difficult for them, but it's definitely doable.. especially when they have a supportive spouse which is often the case with successful career driven married women.

Of course not. But they are working flat out to deal with their constituents needs. In general, a woman with small children is FAR less likely to work a 60 hour week or even a 40 hour week for that matter. One of the key predictors of career success in any field is hours worked.

You're missing the point. There's no requirement for a woman to be out of work for an extensive period on having a child. It's definitely better for both the mother and the child, but having a successful career generally requires sacrifices... choosing what becomes the priority in their lives. It's possible to both, but one side is going to suffer as a result.

Kidchameleon

I dont think we really disagree but what I feel you are not taking in is that a woman is less likely to put a career ahead of her children. Theres a reason most stay at home parents are female - it is not opression, it is nature. We see this pattern all across nature where the female (in general) will stay with the young whilst the male will go hunting.

Kidchameleon

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I dont think we really disagree but what I feel you are not taking in is that a woman is less likely to put a career ahead of her children. Theres a reason most stay at home parents are female - it is not opression, it is nature. We see this pattern all across nature where the female (in general) will stay with the young whilst the male will go hunting.

Yes, I know you're a big fan of the nature argument. I, however, feel that while biological imperatives are a major factor, humans as thinking beings can evolve/develop beyond such concerns. If they so wish to be.

For me, the issue here is culture. It's less than five decades since most western cultures seriously started moving away from the traditional roles for the genders, and it takes time for people to turn away from the stereotypes. As opposed to thousands of years of reinforcing of gender roles due to their biological references. Change takes time to filter through.

There's also the aspect that many women don't want to marry or have children. This is becoming an issue in countries like Japan. This isn't the case of feminist movements to replace having a family with career, but rather a cultural shift away from the traditional way of living. I have Japanese female friends who aren't replacing a family with a career, but replacing a family with whatever they term "freedom" to be.

You see, I'm an egalitarian. Apart from the biological aspects of women bearing children, and males being physically stronger, I feel that in the world today, with it's technological focus, both genders have equal potential in terms of opportunity (not counting quotas and other initiatives which encourage reverse discrimination). I don't buy into the primitive hunter gatherer theory as a major reason for the differences, but rather the cultural influence that remains to this day. Society tends to pressurize women into believing that to be whole, they need to have children.

And we agree. Staying at home is not a signal of oppression. Although we differ in the reasons. For me, It's simply culture and what women wanted in the past. Feminists like to pass everything on to the patriarchy without involving women from the past in their reasons... In my experience, the biggest criticism of a woman's lifestyle doesn't come from males, but from other females who hold different values.

Kidchameleon

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If they so wish to be.
.

No amout of thinking, quotas or culture will change the fact that women (in general) want have children.

Women (in general) want to be with their children rather than be in an office.

It is natuarl and it will NEVER change.

Women will always be behind men in top jobs but that is not a bad thing. Men will always be behind women in producing children

KiKi III

Kidchameleon wrote: »

No amout of thinking, quotas or culture will change the fact that women (in general) want have children.

Women (in general) want to be with their children rather than be in an office.

It is natuarl and it will NEVER change.

Women will always be behind men in top jobs but that is not a bad thing. Men will always be behind women in producing children

Still spouting this alt right/ incel BS days later, eh?

Weird how in a progressive country like Finland the government is now led by a group of four women in their 30s; in New Zealand the Prime Minister is the mother of an infant.

It’s almost like when women are supported to participate in politics they do so and they often excel.

Kidchameleon

Kidchameleon wrote: »

No amout of thinking, quotas or culture will change the fact that women (in general) want have children.

Women (in general) want to be with their children rather than be in an office.

It is natuarl and it will NEVER change.

Exactly. You follow the nature argument. I don't agree with you though.

Women will always be behind men in top jobs but that is not a bad thing. Men will always be behind women in producing children

That's a ridiculous comparison. Comparing a purely biological ability (producing children) with a career driven position (intellectual or skill based).

CtevenSrowder

KiKi III wrote: »

Still spouting this alt right/ incel BS days later, eh?

Weird how in a progressive country like Finland the government is now led by a group of four women in their 30s; in New Zealand the Prime Minister is the mother of an infant.

It’s almost like when women are supported to participate in politics they do so and they often excel.

So women need to have their hands held is it? Whereas men just get on and do it themselves.

Margeret Thatcher and Theresea May were women, what extra support had they? What about our two female presidents?

What is it about the younger generations that you require so much help and support?

I don't hear any other group complaining about all the "barriers" put in their way. There is a Traveller running in my constituency for election, and more power to him. Not a single whinge out of him.