# Fine Gael proposal to impose quotas of female candidates defeated.



## Vanilla (12 Mar 2010)

I read about this in the Irish Times today, link follows:

[broken link removed]

Interestingly the proposal seems to have been heavily opposed by Lucinda Creighton and a few other female party members, and was defeated 18 to 14. The reason Creighton gave was that until reform was carried out to change the things that prevent women entering politics that it would be for show only. I feel that she's scored an own goal here and as a woman I would have expected her and her female colleagues to support this measure. 

True there has to be reform of childcare, working hours and other issues before it becomes easier for women to be in politics- but in introducing quotas and getting a bigger female representation I would argue that those changes will be introduced more quickly. There has to be a change in our cultural thinking too- it's not only women who are affected by childcare and working hours- but somehow it's more acceptable for a woman to require those changes than a man. But if there is a greater representation of women to start with who can demand those changes then that will be a start. This is a vicious circle- until more women are in politics demanding and getting these changes, those changes won't occur. And until those changes occur, fewer women will be in politics. We have to start somewhere.

I wouldn't envisage this being necessary in the long term- when we do get those changes in place, and especially that necessary cultural mind shift, then quotas will no longer have a place in politics. But until then...I'm very disappointed in this result.


----------



## Latrade (12 Mar 2010)

Vanilla said:


> I read about this in the Irish Times today, link follows:
> 
> [broken link removed]
> 
> ...


 
I agree in order to attact more female candidates, the system has to be more "family friendly". 

But, and something often unmentioned, proportionally, IIRC, a greater number of female candidates fail to get elected than male. 

A greater proportion of those who vote are female.

So most of the voting population are female, yet they tend not to vote for female candidates and give preference to male. 

Will the imposition of quotas solve this? 

I actually think it might have an effect, maybe the current system means we only get a "stereotypical" type of female candidate who's viewed as putting politics or career ahead of family (as in effect they have had to), which is less attractive to female voters and as a result less get elected.


----------



## DB74 (12 Mar 2010)

I think it's an insult to women to suggest that we need a quota to be filled.

Should we also have a quota for Polish or Black TDs.


----------



## Vanilla (12 Mar 2010)

DB74 said:


> I think it's an insult to women to suggest that we need a quota to be filled.
> 
> Should we also have a quota for Polish or Black TDs.


 

I don't view positive discrimination as an insult, I view it as a temporary necessary measure in order to introduce a mindshift, a change in the organisation of politics. 

If the world were already perfect, if women were already in the same position as men with regard to child care, working hours etc  then it would be an insult. But at the moment I would disagree.

A working woman rarely has a househusband behind her willing to take up the family slack, whereas men do. And socially woman who might be in this position can be viewed with distrust or dislike. I'm not actually advocating that the change should be that women politicians in the future will act exactly like male ones do now. I feel that a cultural, social and legal change should be implemented so that both men and women can go into politics and also have a family life- that changes be made to working hours, childcare provisions and so on so that politicians have a more normal working week. This will ensure that all have an equal starting point and positive discrimination should no longer be necessary.


----------



## DB74 (12 Mar 2010)

I don't believe that there is any such thing as "positive discrimination"

I agree with Lucinda Creighton here - if we want more women in politics then we need social changes to encourage them into politics, not insist that they fill 20 of every 100 seats, when there may be better male candidates out there.

This is where we have to start IMO.

If women REALLY wanted these changes in society they could get them.

If Irish women REALLY wanted more women TDs then they would vote for them.

They don't!


----------



## Caveat (12 Mar 2010)

I have big issues with positive discrimination in all it's forms and this is another example. 

Any achievements should be through hard work and merit IMO. 

I completely accept that women often have a harder time in the workplace and professions and face obstacles that men don't and I also accept that politics does regretably seem to be a boys club but still there are many successful women in politics. That there are not many more could be due to any number of factors - maybe women simply have more sense? 

Plenty of jobs and professions attract more men than women and vice versa - maybe politics is simply of these?


----------



## Vanilla (12 Mar 2010)

I'd like to know how anyone can say that female voters don't vote for females- how is this data collated? Are there enough candidates for us to make this deduction?

Yes, Caveat, there are a handful of successful female politicians but the percentages are very low. And there are few candidates up and coming. I think to say that women don't run because they 'have more sense' is the type of attitude that reinforces the lack of candidates. They 'have more sense' because politics is a dirty business, because it means long hours, because you have to be a 'cute hoor', etc etc. But politics should not be like this. A politician should have a working week that will attract good candidates- not just candidates that can take long hours, cute hoorism, backslapping etc- not just Mickey Joes son because they already have all the contacts etc. A normal working week- not necessarily 9 to 5- will attract more candidates, and therefore we should have a better selection to choose from.


----------



## shnaek (12 Mar 2010)

I agree with Caveat. The imposition of quotas would mean the end of democracy.


----------



## Vanilla (12 Mar 2010)

shnaek said:


> I agree with Caveat. The imposition of quotas would mean the end of democracy.


 
Tell that to the Scandanavian and many other countries around the world where political parties have voluntarily imposed quotas on their own candidates and where it has resulted in greater representation in parliament.


----------



## DB74 (12 Mar 2010)

Vanilla said:


> I'd like to know how anyone can say that female voters don't vote for females- how is this data collated? Are there enough candidates for us to make this deduction?


 
Because if every female voted for a female candidate and every male voted for a male candidate then we would have 50:50 representation in the Dail.


----------



## Vanilla (12 Mar 2010)

DB74 said:


> Because if every female voted for a female candidate and every male voted for a male candidate then we would have 50:50 representation in the Dail.


 
Sorry, way too simplistic. There are not enough female candidates to make this deduction. 

Also if I agree with fianna fail policy, and there is no female candidate other than a labour candidate ( whose policies I do not agree with) am I to vote for individual, party or policy?

You don't agree with positive discrimination but yet you are stating that if female voters wanted female representation, they would vote for females- that in itself would be positive discrimination as they would be voting gender, not policy.


----------



## haminka1 (12 Mar 2010)

i'm a woman but i don't believe in quotas - it's their qualities as politicians that matter - and you can have a woman with absolutely no compassion, no social thinking and no interest whatsoever to represent women's interests - see mary harney and mary coughlan


----------



## DB74 (12 Mar 2010)

In the last General Election, how many constituencies had NO Fianna Fail woman candidate.

And if you agree with a particular party's politics/policies, then what does it matter if the representative is a male or female? They are still going to implement the same policies.


----------



## Vanilla (12 Mar 2010)

DB74 said:


> In the last General Election, how many constituencies had NO Fianna Fail woman candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## csirl (12 Mar 2010)

> Why do we need female representation? Because in a population that has almost equal men and woman,


 
The vote of every man and woman has equal weight. It is a core prinicipal of democracy that the voters have a right to chose who they want to represent them. Quotas go against this principal.

The issue isnt the electoral system is the attitudes of the political parties who put forward candidates as the candidates put forward reflect the choice of the party members. Change the parties, not the system if you want to see real change.


----------



## Latrade (12 Mar 2010)

haminka1 said:


> i'm a woman but i don't believe in quotas - it's their qualities as politicians that matter - and you can have a woman with absolutely no compassion, no social thinking and no interest whatsoever to represent women's interests - see mary harney and mary coughlan


 
Which I think qualifies my initial point on the view of the women who do enter politics. While those two do have their faults, are those faults any worse than some of their male counterparts? Yet there does appear to be a greater scrutiny of their appearance and competence. 

Take also ex Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in the UK and the broohaha about her "expenses scandal" that brought about her resignation. Her husband watch two "mild" adult films on cable and for the sake of 20 quid or so she's hounded out of office. Her male counterparts on both side of the house claimed for thousands for duck ponds, etc. Some are even facing criminal charges and yet she's the only one to be hung out to dry by the media.

They had the full details of all expenses yet she was singled out.

In addition, how many male candidates have had to be focussed on a political career to the detriment or sacrifice of their families, and how many are judge negatively as cold or lacking compassion?

I still say no to quotas, I think the political systems needs changing.


----------



## Vanilla (12 Mar 2010)

csirl said:


> The vote of every man and woman has equal weight. It is a core prinicipal of democracy that the voters have a right to chose who they want to represent them. Quotas go against this principal.
> 
> The issue isnt the electoral system is the attitudes of the political parties who put forward candidates as the candidates put forward reflect the choice of the party members. Change the parties, not the system if you want to see real change.


 
You're missing the point- this _would_ be changing the parties- ie the quota would be for political parties candidate choice. After that, who gets elected is still up to the voter.


----------



## Vanilla (12 Mar 2010)

Latrade said:


> I still say no to quotas, I think the political systems needs changing.


 
Okay, how?


----------



## Latrade (12 Mar 2010)

Vanilla said:


> Okay, how?


 
As has been mentioned, towards a system that would be more accomodating to women with families. I accept it isn't an immediate change and one that can or will have an immediate impact, but given how the system is, what good is a quota going to do? 

There's just too much I don't know behind this, such as just how many female candidates put their names forward for each party. Is it a large number and they're being rejected at a local party level? Well, if so, then maybe a quota would work in that example.

Is it that female candidates just aren't putting themselves forward and aren't involved in political parties at the local level? If that's the case then no quota will work. You still won't have the numbers.

We need to really find out why women aren't being allowed to (in the former case) or aren't putting themselves up as candidates (in the latter case) before we impose any quotas. 

I fully support and want more women candidates and TDs it should represent the country. But I just don't see any efficient and effective fast-track means of getting there. 

There's too many assumptions as to why there aren't enough candidates. We need to find out what are the prohibitions and seek to eliminate them.

New Labour in the UK ran it's female only areas and did result in a large increase in women politicians. Of course they were dubbed the "Blair Babes", but they've also dropped in numbers dramatically in each subsequent election losing their seats.


----------



## Vanilla (12 Mar 2010)

Latrade, I agree with much of what you are saying- we need change and the change needs to be at candidate level. Interestingly in the Scandanavian countries where quotas have been introduced, what they say is that change was introduced BEFORE quotas- so that for eg, I think in Norway, representation was at 20 or 25% prior to quotas, and is now up over 40%. The change was made both by womens groups heavily lobbying parties to choose female candidates, to groom them, to educate them in public speaking, pr etc, and also lobbying successfully for social change in working hours, in good maternity leave, maternity pay, childcare systems and so on. So the structure, legal and social, was in place before quotas which in itself would have attracted more candidates.So it can be done without quotas, but it takes generations to do this.


----------



## Latrade (12 Mar 2010)

Vanilla said:


> Latrade, I agree with much of what you are saying- we need change and the change needs to be at candidate level. Interestingly in the Scandanavian countries where quotas have been introduced, what they say is that change was introduced BEFORE quotas- so that for eg, I think in Norway, representation was at 20 or 25% prior to quotas, and is now up over 40%. The change was made both by womens groups heavily lobbying parties to choose female candidates, to groom them, to educate them in public speaking, pr etc, and also lobbying successfully for social change in working hours, in good maternity leave, maternity pay, childcare systems and so on. So the structure, legal and social, was in place before quotas which in itself would have attracted more candidates.So it can be done without quotas, but it takes generations to do this.


 
I guess that was partly my less than elequent point. The fundamental changes to politics and the expectations on TDs needs to shift and be more attractive. I'm not saying we make it a doddle and strip out the work that needs to be done as a TD, but as you point out, some basic aspects that, well, every other employer has had to put in place either by law or to attract good employees.

I have to say, I know of a couple of fantastic potential women candidates local to me. One FG and one FF. Both were overlooked recently for bigger profile (new) male candidates. One a pretty inept ex-council, the other a parachute job (not George Lee btw). What was worse was seeing these two highly capable, young two women suddenly relegated at pretty much the last minute still having to go out and canvass for the men as to raise any objection would end their career in full.

So it isn't just the job, it isn't just women not going for the work, it isn't just not getting elected. There is still a core of prejudice among the big two parties.


----------



## Caveat (12 Mar 2010)

It's maybe worth mentioning too that Scandanavia is an unusual example.  Historically and culturally the roles and contributions of women have been held in much higher regard than most other countries due to specific socio-economic reasons - as well of course as having a pretty enlightened approach to life generally.  What I'm saying is that Scandanavia is somewhat of a special case.


----------



## Latrade (12 Mar 2010)

Caveat said:


> as well of course as having a pretty enlightened approach to life generally.


 
This is a lead in to the lunch time topless sunbathing that so facinates the male tourist isn't it?


----------



## Caveat (12 Mar 2010)

Why haven't I been told about this?


----------



## MissRibena (12 Mar 2010)

I really would love to see more women in positions of power, not just politics and find it hard to understand what happens between school/college where women achieve so highly and the workplace where pay and power tend to follow the men.  I think we are all a lot poorer for not getting our heads around whatever is going on here. We encourage women to have options (even if it's only lip-service at times) but we don't promote men fully sharing in childcare/rearing through paternity leave etc.

That said, I can see how the quota business might not be popular, even if I tend to agree with Vanilla's point that it may be necessary even temporarily to kickstart the rebalancing of gender represenation.

But why don't we just make a rule that in each constituency/election, that any party that wants to put forward a male candidate must also find a female one to compete (and vice versa obviously).  It's still artificial but at least the public have a real option then.  I say this because I always make it my business to vote for a female where possible but I won't compromise my values to do it (e.g. I wouldn't vote Sinn Fein just because that was the only female candidate available).  I really struggled to find a woman to vote for in the last local elections - female representation just wasn't available to me.


----------



## csirl (12 Mar 2010)

> As has been mentioned, towards a system that would be more accomodating to women with families. I accept it isn't an immediate change and one that can or will have an immediate impact, but given how the system is, what good is a quota going to do?


 
Being a TD must be one of the most family friendly jobs in Ireland. Short working week, short days, long holidays etc etc. And not even required to attend the Dail except for important votes. Would be difficult to make it more accommodating.


----------



## Latrade (12 Mar 2010)

csirl said:


> Being a TD must be one of the most family friendly jobs in Ireland. Short working week, short days, long holidays etc etc. And not even required to attend the Dail except for important votes. Would be difficult to make it more accommodating.


 
I can't say I'm over enamoured with the lot of the current crop, but I couldn't describe their lives as family friendly.


----------



## haminka1 (12 Mar 2010)

Latrade said:


> Which I think qualifies my initial point on the view of the women who do enter politics. While those two do have their faults, are those faults any worse than some of their male counterparts? Yet there does appear to be a greater scrutiny of their appearance and competence.
> 
> Take also ex Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in the UK and the broohaha about her "expenses scandal" that brought about her resignation. Her husband watch two "mild" adult films on cable and for the sake of 20 quid or so she's hounded out of office. Her male counterparts on both side of the house claimed for thousands for duck ponds, etc. Some are even facing criminal charges and yet she's the only one to be hung out to dry by the media.
> 
> ...



latrade, that's actually exactly my point - most people want quotas because they believe that female candidates will be better at representing women's interest - but it all comes down to the attitude of individual politicians not their gender - i wouldn't slag a female politician just because she is a woman or expect her to be "social" or whatever, i don't expect them to be any different, better or worse than men ... 
that said, i see no reason for the quotas, i only wish for politicians with a backbone, honesty and understanding for the needs of the people they represent /and i mean their voters, not their banker or developer or industrial tycoon pals/ - male or female


----------



## Yorrick (12 Mar 2010)

Eithne Fitzgerald received 18000 votes in Dublin South and still managed to lose her seat the next time out as did Niamh Breatnach.
If they were good enough they would have been re elected.
Please don't give me the line that women will be more compassionate etc etc.
They are well able to stick their head in the trough. Mary Robinson was elected President but ditched the job when a bigger job with the United Nations turned up.

Look at Maggie Thatcher, Condoleesa Rice etc. As ruthless as any male if not worse


----------



## shnaek (15 Mar 2010)

Vanilla said:


> Why do we need female representation? Because in a population that has almost equal men and woman, we need representation equally. We need gender equality in our government so that social and political influences are imposed both by men and women- so that women influence the legal and political decision making for all of us.



Why stop at gender quotas? Most of our population are Catholic, so we should have a matching proportion of Catholics representing us. Most of our population are white, so we should have mostly whites in our houses of Parliament. A good percentage of the population are children - you can see where I am going with this. 

Ability is the only consideration. How can we put our leaders in place based on anything else, such as gender, skin colour, religion etc. 

Not that our current masters are anything to write home about in the ability stakes...


----------



## StevieC (15 Mar 2010)

I think a lot are missing the point, its not about quota's, its not about percentages, its about the right person for the job regardless of gender (Lucinda wanted to be recognised for getting the job on merit not her gender).

Based on the performance of some at the moment, regardless of how they do their job, the public seem to vote them back in, it should be easy for women to get in power if they were any good.

The system is fundamentally flawed in that the best dont get the job regardless of their gender. Either that or the people who run for public office are all crap and we vote in the best of a bad lot. 

Bringing in quota's wont fix the public voting in bad candidates, in fact it will most likely make it worse as some talented male at some point will not get the job because of what he has between his legs and how exactly is that fair?


----------



## DerKaiser (15 Mar 2010)

DB74 said:


> I don't believe that there is any such thing as "positive discrimination".


 
Absolutely.  This kind of thinking leads to inequality, not equality.

If there are disincentives for women getting into politics then look at removing them rather than insisting upon quotas


----------



## Latrade (15 Mar 2010)

StevieC said:


> I think a lot are missing the point, its not about quota's, its not about percentages, its about the right person for the job regardless of gender (Lucinda wanted to be recognised for getting the job on merit not her gender).


 
I don't think that point has been missed, I see it that most are reluctant to go immediately down a path of quotas. The problem that has been identified is that there is a greater barrier to women getting involved with politics than men, via the system and in some cases the party themselves, so there isn't even the opportunity to vote for the right person in the first place.


----------



## DB74 (15 Mar 2010)

There's nothing to stop women from running as independent candidates

Far from ideal, especially when compared to being on a party ticket, but the option is still there


----------



## shnaek (15 Mar 2010)

I agree with StevieC above. The quality of the person and their ability to do the job should always be the criteria upon which they are judged.
Positive discrimination is nothing but discrimination.


----------



## Latrade (15 Mar 2010)

DB74 said:


> There's nothing to stop women from running as independent candidates
> 
> Far from ideal, especially when compared to being on a party ticket, but the option is still there


 
C'mon. The system is prohibitive enough, and the only answer to a further problem (i.e. bias among the two main parties) is they have to go and shoulder the whole expense themselves even though they'd have done as much grass roots work (even more in examples I gave above) as the male candidates?

It's nothing to do with giving an advantage to women candidates, it's about making a system that isn't overly prohibitive to one particular gender.


----------



## DB74 (15 Mar 2010)

I agree with you but your statement _"so there isn't even the opportunity to vote for the right person in the first place_" is technically incorrect.


----------



## StevieC (15 Mar 2010)

Latrade said:


> I don't think that point has been missed, I see it that most are reluctant to go immediately down a path of quotas. The problem that has been identified is that there is a greater barrier to women getting involved with politics than men, via the system and in some cases the party themselves, so there isn't even the opportunity to vote for the right person in the first place.


 
Many parties want to run women, I know for a fact that Fianna Fail actively looks for female candidates as it has a 1 in 3 quota system for its internal organisation at local level, that is for every 3 delegates at least one should be a woman and at least one should be a male. Unless there is no woman/man available. 

I dont see any barriers to women candidates in Fianna Fail, if anything they have an advantage over men, even at national executive level far more men apply for the position than women and membership of the executive is quota'd so it is harder for men to get elected to this body.

Parties recognise the huge "woman" vote out there for the right woman (just look at our last two Presidents), many women seem to just think the male candidates are better in certain in local and national constituencies.

Personally I think we have gotten past sexism in politics, people want good candidates regardless of gender and if anything Fianna Fail are more pro women within Fianna Fail than pro men. 

Outside of Fianna Fail I know less but I certainly see where Lucinda is coming from, she worked hard from a very young age to get recognised to be a suitable candidate to run for the Dail. Why should a woman who has not lifted a finger prior to an election be allowed to run if she is the only woman available? It diminishes the work of those women who have worked hard to get where they are.


----------



## Complainer (15 Mar 2010)

I've never been told by a man that he voted for a particular candidate because he was a man. I've met plenty of ladies who have told me proudly how they chose their candidate primarily by gender.


----------



## DB74 (15 Mar 2010)

Complainer said:


> I've never been told by a man that he voted for a particular candidate because he was a man.


 
The implications could be devastating!


----------



## Yorrick (15 Mar 2010)

Who will make the dinner and do the housework if all the women get involved in politics ?

Not the men. The women will hire other women that they in turn can exploit.
How many of Blairs Babes were caught out with Au Pairs without visas etc.


----------



## Complainer (15 Mar 2010)

csirl said:


> Being a TD must be one of the most family friendly jobs in Ireland. Short working week, short days, long holidays etc etc. And not even required to attend the Dail except for important votes. Would be difficult to make it more accommodating.



Any TD who tried this won't get re-elected. The average TD will find themselves attending 1 or 2 residents/campaign meetings a week, maybe 1 or 2 meetings of their own party branches, and will be running clinics for constituents as well. 



DB74 said:


> I don't believe that there is any such thing as  "positive discrimination"





DerKaiser said:


> Absolutely.  This kind of thinking leads to inequality, not equality.


There is a well-established approach in equality circles of 'positive action'. For example, you may need to provide an sign-language interpreter for a deaf person attending an event. This is not 'equality', but is providing equal access. You may need to provide extra language teachers for kids for whom English is not their first language at home, to ensure that they catch up on their classmates. This is not 'equality', but is providing equal access.

Similarly, there are barriers for many people in participating in politics. Some of these barriers can be addressed by providing extra supports, and some will need infrastructural changes. 

It is disappointing that for many people, 'equality' is narrowed down to gender equality, and gender equality is narrowed down to wimmin's issues. I don't believe that quotas are the answer to this problem.


----------



## Purple (16 Mar 2010)

I agree 100% with Complainer.


----------



## Latrade (16 Mar 2010)

DB74 said:


> I agree with you but your statement _"so there isn't even the opportunity to vote for the right person in the first place_" is technically incorrect.


 
 yes, technically incorrect on the basis of an unreasonable and impracticable assumption that they could go independent. Thanks for pointing that out.


----------

