# Why would any woman ever join or vote for Fianna Fáil?



## so-crates (28 Feb 2016)

Looking at the outcome of this election there is one particular thing that has struck me. Each of the parties were bound by the Phil the Pheminist rule - you had to field 30% female candidates. But how has this translated into seats?

Final figures are not in but what is ABUNDANTLY clear is that Fianna Fáil (unsurprisingly) is a cold place to be a woman. As Averil Power found, party members don't exactly treat their female representatives with respect. This election clearly shows that their voters take a similar tack. 

With 12 seats yet to fill these are the numbers

FG
89 candidates - 27 female
46 elected - 12 female (so 26% though that will likely drop slightly)

FF
71 candidates - 21 female
42 elected - 6 female (so 14% which may also drop slightly)

Labour 
36 candidates - 12 female
6 elected - 2 female (precisely the same percentage though that again may drop slightly and is skewed by Labour's trouncing)

SF
50 candidates - 18 female
22 elected - 5 female (so 23% - again may drop slightly)

Since Phil's rule levelled the playing field by forcing them all to start with in or about the same percentage it means that the significant loss of female candidates for FF is down to something awry in FF itself.

No surprise it was the party that got rid of divorce and contraception in the 1930's...


----------



## Purple (29 Feb 2016)

That's very unfair on FF. They are the party which decriminalised homosexuality. Done by a female minister for justice. Charlie also brought in significant legislation in the 1970's to protect women after family breakdown. There is much to criticise FF on but their record on social reform and women's rights is second only to the Labour Party.


----------



## Vanilla (29 Feb 2016)

Purple said:


> That's very unfair on FF. They are the party which decriminalised homosexuality. Done by a female minister for justice.



On foot of a ruling from the ECHR after a case was brought by David Norris. Most of our legislation was brought in on foot of lobbying from the Law Reform commission, or after legislative challenges, constitutional referendums, ECHR rulings and in light of changing societal values. I don't think any political party can really claim a moral victory for these- should we say that FG/Labour changed the law to allow gay marriage?


----------



## Purple (29 Feb 2016)

Vanilla said:


> On foot of a ruling from the ECHR after a case was brought by David Norris. Most of our legislation was brought in on foot of lobbying from the Law Reform commission, or after legislative challenges, constitutional referendums, ECHR rulings and in light of changing societal values. I don't think any political party can really claim a moral victory for these- should we say that FG/Labour changed the law to allow gay marriage?


Fair points. In general politicians bottle it and wait to be forced to change things by the Supreme Court or the EU.

Edit: Governments have often ignored rulings by the ECHR and our own courts, just look at how long the X case ruling was ignored.  
Máire Geoghegan-Quinn acted quickly and rectified the crazy situation. 
Incidentally she was the first female cabinet Minister since the first Dail. Again an FF first. She was also a real loss to Irish politics.


----------



## so-crates (29 Feb 2016)

Not strictly fair. Two examples: Garrett Fitzgerald entered government fully intending on getting divorce legalised in the 80's, Labour made explicit commitments on marriage equality prior to 2011. SOME politicians need nudging.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (29 Feb 2016)

On the candidates , it was 30% for FF and FG, 33% for Labour and 35% for Sinn Féin.  Not really a significant difference there. 

All of the parties want to maximise seats.  If they think that a woman is the most likely to win a seat, they will either nominate her or add her.  I don't know the story of Averil Power. But didn't Sinn Féin have problems with Sandra McLellan?  Fine Gael had problems with Perry up in Sligo, but that doesn't make them feminists either. 

Brendan


----------



## Purple (29 Feb 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> On the candidates , it was 30% for FF and FG, 33% for Labour and 35% for Sinn Féin.  Not really a significant difference there.
> 
> All of the parties want to maximise seats.  If they think that a woman is the most likely to win a seat, they will either nominate her or add her.  I don't know the story of Averil Power. But didn't Sinn Féin have problems with Sandra McLellan?  Fine Gael had problems with Perry up in Sligo, but that doesn't make them feminists either.
> 
> Brendan


I don't see a connection between quotas and feminism as feminism is meant to be about equality. That said we do need more female TD's.


----------



## 44brendan (29 Feb 2016)

Purple said:


> That said we do need more female TD's.


The more relevant point is that we need more capable TD's and I agree that there are many capable female candidates out there. However it has often been pointed out that Irish politics requires an enormous time commitment and has tended to retain the "boys club" atmosphere of old. I have often raised the issue of a lack of women at management level in our own organization and I find that many of the capable candidates are just not prepared to put up with the hassle involved. i.e. dealing with a misogynistic culture and the necessary requirement of becoming "one of the boys".
Joan Burton came in for an enormous amount of flack during the last 5 years and while politics does involve taking some flack I feel that most women would be unprepared to expose themselves to this when they could get a well paid alternative position if they had the talent!


----------



## Ceist Beag (29 Feb 2016)

44brendan said:


> while politics does involve taking some flack I feel that most women would be unprepared to expose themselves to this when they could get a well paid alternative position if they had the talent!


Can't the very same be said for men!


----------



## Purple (1 Mar 2016)

Ceist Beag said:


> Can't the very same be said for men!


No, if they say it they are wimps.


----------



## Setanta12 (1 Mar 2016)

Vanilla said:


> - should we say that FG/Labour changed the law to allow gay marriage?



Maybe not, but they are claiming the credit for it.  I used to take a similar view but I recall Bill Clinton and paraphrasing-alert, if you see a turtle on a fence-post, it didn't get there by itself!  

Which I took to mean, that political parties can take credit for referendums, social legislation, booms etc - but then they also have to take blame for recessions etc.


----------



## so-crates (2 Mar 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> On the candidates , it was 30% for FF and FG, 33% for Labour and 35% for Sinn Féin.  Not really a significant difference there.
> 
> All of the parties want to maximise seats.  If they think that a woman is the most likely to win a seat, they will either nominate her or add her.  I don't know the story of Averil Power. But didn't Sinn Féin have problems with Sandra McLellan?  Fine Gael had problems with Perry up in Sligo, but that doesn't make them feminists either.
> 
> Brendan


It doesn't make them feminists. And those were all issues around candidate selection. This isn't really about the candidate selection so much as how that translated into seats. FF had the poorest result in that regard

But it is interesting to note that of the 27 women that FG ran, 11 got in (41%). Of the 21 that FF ran, 6 got in (29%). FF had fewer names because they had left the Dáil with no sitting TDs but most of the women FG ran with were not sitting TDs either. For comparison FF ended up with 76% of the men they ran sitting in the Dáil (FG 65%). FF has a much larger gender gap to close.


----------



## cremeegg (5 Mar 2016)

FF is hardly the most anti woman organisation that is widely supported by women. The Catholic church, Islam, the fashion industry are just three things that spring to mind.

The oppression of women is usually fully supported by women.


----------



## RobFer (7 Mar 2016)

so-crates said:


> Looking at the outcome of this election there is one particular thing that has struck me. Each of the parties were bound by the Phil the Pheminist rule - you had to field 30% female candidates. But how has this translated into seats?
> 
> Final figures are not in but what is ABUNDANTLY clear is that Fianna Fáil (unsurprisingly) is a cold place to be a woman. As Averil Power found, party members don't exactly treat their female representatives with respect. This election clearly shows that their voters take a similar tack.
> 
> ...


It is really presumptious to assume that Dail seats reflects a party being a cold place for women.


----------



## so-crates (8 Mar 2016)

cremeegg said:


> FF is hardly the most anti woman organisation that is widely supported by women. The Catholic church, Islam, the fashion industry are just three things that spring to mind.
> 
> The oppression of women is usually fully supported by women.



It isn't a question of whether or not they are supported by women. And it isn't really a question of "oppression" either. The relevant comparison is between the political parties. Phil the Pheminist set up the conditions for a natural experiment. All the parties started with similar percentages of female candidates. Greens (50%), Social Democrats (67%), AAA-PBP (33%) and Labour (29%) are all too small to be useful to compare outcomes of the election on these candidates but the other three are all large enough in the Dáil to examine.

On the final results we have
FG - 50 in total - 39/11 (22%)
FF - 44 in total - 38/6 (14%)
SF - 23 in total - 17/6 (29%)
Lab - 7 in total - 5/2 (29%)
AAA-PBP - 6 in total - 4/2 (33%)
SD - 3 in total 1/2 (67%)
Greens 2 in total 1/1 (50%)

The outcome of the experiment is that, in terms of achieving more female representation in politics FF's result is not dreadful (and absolutely and improvement on managing to aggravate their only female TD into leaving the party last year) but is measurably less than the other parties. What causes that discrepancy is probably a combination of multiple influences but taken at face value FF is not the party to run for if you are a woman.



RobFer said:


> It is really presumptious to assume that Dail seats reflects a party being a cold place for women.



Whether or not it is presumptuous is a matter of opinion. I am not a member of FF or any party so I can only draw inference from what I see from the outside. Objectively, at the very least, the election outcome clearly points to "a lot more to do" for FF in particular when it comes to women in politics. The nice thing about the election data is that it is a pleasing natural experiment. They all had the same starting point yet the FF outcome is out of step with the others. The simple truth is that female FF candidates did considerably worse than female candidates for any of the other parties. Not only are they under-represented in the Dáil in comparison to the other parties, the difference in the success rate for male FF candidates and female FF candidates is considerably wider than any other party. 76% of male FF candidates made it to the Dáil, whereas 29% of their female candidates achieved the same. FG enter the Dáil with 63% of their male candidates and 41% of their female and SF with 53% of their male and 33% of their female candidates. SF's rate of return for female candidates is little better than FF but their men are less successful.


----------



## RobFer (8 Mar 2016)

so-crates said:


> It isn't a question of whether or not they are supported by women. And it isn't really a question of "oppression" either. The relevant comparison is between the political parties. Phil the Pheminist set up the conditions for a natural experiment. All the parties started with similar percentages of female candidates. Greens (50%), Social Democrats (67%), AAA-PBP (33%) and Labour (29%) are all too small to be useful to compare outcomes of the election on these candidates but the other three are all large enough in the Dáil to examine.
> 
> On the final results we have
> FG - 50 in total - 39/11 (22%)
> ...



Ultimately the result reflects the electorate, not FF housekeeping. The main reasons TDs are mostly male is down to the career preferences of Irish women not hostility or discrimination. Ireland has an excellent social net that enables women to follow their preferences, and often when women have the choice their prefer female dominated professions. Some of the most female friendly countries have the largest gender gaps due to this.

Averil Power didn't cite FF aggravation to women as a reason she left. She is left. Maybe she just felt out of place in what is a centre- to centre left party.


----------



## so-crates (8 Mar 2016)

RobFer said:


> Ultimately the result reflects the electorate, not FF housekeeping


If that were true (and I think you mean, ultimately the result reflects *the choice* of the electorate), there would be little or no difference between the parties.



RobFer said:


> The main reasons TDs are mostly male is down to the career preferences of Irish women not hostility or discrimination. Ireland has an excellent social net that enables women to follow their preferences, and often when women have the choice their prefer female dominated professions. Some of the most female friendly countries have the largest gender gaps due to this.


I think you possibly need to research this a little further. Hostility and discrimination may be on the wane but they are still alive and kicking in Ireland (lovely example recently on Camden street of a women beaten up for being gay and unwilling to acquiesce to an unreasonable request from a lout). I would suspect more than one woman would question your assertion regarding the ability of women to follow their preferences and how those preferences are arrived at. The majority of home carers are women and not all of them have had much choice in the matter. Issues around childcare and elderly care affect women disproportionally, there is still a pay gap between men and women and low representation of women in careers as diverse as politics, literature and science as well as low representation of women in the upper echelons of most professions is not due to "when women have the choice their prefer female dominated professions". On International Women's Day - I would suggest you have a good look around.

Fundamentally women have been grossly under-represented in our legislature for decades - even with the increase in representation in the new Dáil they are still under-represented. This is not due to a preference for female dominated professions.



RobFer said:


> Some of the most female friendly countries have the largest gender gaps due to this.


Assertion without proof is simply opinion. Where is the evidence of this?



RobFer said:


> Averil Power didn't cite FF aggravation to women as a reason she left


No she quoted the <ahem> resistance she encountered from the party regarding their lukewarm "support" of a yes vote in the marriage referendum. Band-wagon jumping springs to mind as an appropriate description of lip-service support of what was a popular cause among young people in particular.


----------



## T McGibney (8 Mar 2016)

Averil Power.

A leftist social radical who joined a conservative party. Failed to get elected to her local council. Failed to get elected to the Dáil. Nominated by Micheal Martin to contest a Seanad election and used his personal support to win a seat there, only to repay him by storming out of the party when overruled on a policy issue. Failed again to get elected to the Dáil. Married to the editor of the country's largest newspaper.

Still considered a "politician".

Only in Ireland.


----------



## Clonback (8 Mar 2016)

Well said Tommy and she is trying the Seanad again. In Longford/Westmeath Connie Geraty Quinn a first timer got pipped at the post.


----------



## thedaddyman (9 Mar 2016)

Correct me if I am wrong but FF was an all male party in the Dail before the recent election? If so, to go from that to having 6 female TD's is not a bad start. It should also be remembered that

Historically, FF had more female TD's then the other parties, supported a female President (Mary Mc), went into coalition with parties led by a women (PD's).
FF also ran more female candidates in the election then any of the other parties
FF were a little unlucky not to get a couple of other women elected, In Carlow-Kilkenny and Cork East, they lost out on the last count for example
Is it not also a dangerous presumption that women will only vote for and elect women if given a choice. ? 

Frankly, I couldn't care less what sex a TD is as long as they are competent


----------



## cork (9 Mar 2016)

so-crates said:


> As Averil Power found, party members don't exactly treat their female representatives with respect. ..



*Averil Power* had 73000 calendars printed at our expense for her ‘constituents’.


----------



## RobFer (9 Mar 2016)

so-crates said:


> If that were true (and I think you mean, ultimately the result reflects *the choice* of the electorate), there would be little or no difference between the parties.
> 
> 
> I think you possibly need to research this a little further. Hostility and discrimination may be on the wane but they are still alive and kicking in Ireland (lovely example recently on Camden street of a women beaten up for being gay and unwilling to acquiesce to an unreasonable request from a lout). I would suspect more than one woman would question your assertion regarding the ability of women to follow their preferences and how those preferences are arrived at. The majority of home carers are women and not all of them have had much choice in the matter. Issues around childcare and elderly care affect women disproportionally, there is still a pay gap between men and women and low representation of women in careers as diverse as politics, literature and science as well as low representation of women in the upper echelons of most professions is not due to "when women have the choice their prefer female dominated professions". On International Women's Day - I would suggest you have a good look around.
> ...


Women are grossly under-represented in the brick laying profession but I don't think that is any evidence that women face glass ceilings in brick laying. A recent study found that women actually have a hiring advantage in  STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics]. There is a large gap in pay between women and men but its mostly a product of women choosing more part-time work and less risky professions. The reality is choice is driving the gap, and every economist how examines this issue stresses this, but the progressive left isn't very fond of numbers. Women simply aren't clamouring to become TDs or enter the other male dominated jobs whether it is maths or oil roughneck work. Discrimination exists but its minor factor.



so-crates said:


> If that were true (and I think you mean, ultimately the result reflects *the choice* of the electorate), there would be little or no difference between the parties.
> 
> 
> No she quoted the <ahem> resistance she encountered from the party regarding their lukewarm "support" of a yes vote in the marriage referendum. Band-wagon jumping springs to mind as an appropriate description of lip-service support of what was a popular cause among young people in particular.


Yes she cited the same-sex ref as a reason but that has nothing to do with whether or not FF is receptive to female TDs. She probably felt she belonged to a more leftist party. I am sure she is shocked by the FF resurgence.


----------



## Vanessa (27 Mar 2016)

so-crates said:


> Not strictly fair. Two examples: Garrett Fitzgerald entered government fully intending on getting divorce legalised in the 80's, Labour made explicit commitments on marriage equality prior to 2011. SOME politicians need nudging.


And then FG lost power because of a tax on childrens shoes. Gareth thought women with small feet could evade the tax if he excluded childrens shoes from the tax


----------



## Leper (29 Mar 2016)

Very interesting thread.  Where I work there are far more women than men.  Some of the women are members of political parties (well FG and FF). They canvass during elections and referenda.  They openly debate topical points almost on a weekly basis. They are well informed people and can hold their own anywhere.

Then there are the likes of me, cynical, no support to any particular party, outspoken etc.  I have put it to them that women are under-represented and under-performers in all our political parties. My political female colleagues informed me that they are involved in political parties to hasten change.  They are probably right, get involved, make your mark, change what must be changed. But, most of us prefer to stay outside of political parties and just vote whatever way we feel at election time.


----------



## Purple (29 Mar 2016)

RobFer said:


> Women are grossly under-represented in the brick laying profession but I don't think that is any evidence that women face glass ceilings in brick laying. A recent study found that women actually have a hiring advantage in  STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics]. There is a large gap in pay between women and men but its mostly a product of women choosing more part-time work and less risky professions. The reality is choice is driving the gap, and every economist how examines this issue stresses this, but the progressive left isn't very fond of numbers. Women simply aren't clamouring to become TDs or enter the other male dominated jobs whether it is maths or oil roughneck work. Discrimination exists but its minor factor.
> 
> 
> Yes she cited the same-sex ref as a reason but that has nothing to do with whether or not FF is receptive to female TDs. She probably felt she belonged to a more leftist party. I am sure she is shocked by the FF resurgence.


Good post Rob. Women do face sexism in many areas but attitudes towards men, by both women and other men, can be equally discriminatory. So-crates point regarding carers is well made and is not always down to choice but it is true to say that most (but not all) of the reasons for pay and participation gaps between men and women in the workforce are down to choice rather than discrimination.
A women getting attacked because she is gay isn't due to sexism, it's due to homophobic bigotry. Gay men are probably more likely to face such attacks by the same ignorant thugs. 
A good measure of the power of a group within society is who spends the money. As most adverts are targeted towards women it is fair to say that the advertising industry regards them as the main spenders. Roll back to the 60's and 70's and most adverts were aimed at men.


----------



## joe sod (29 Mar 2016)

Is there also a case of straight men also being bullied because they are a bit unconventional, maybe they dress with more colour or longer hair, so therefore they will be branded as gay because people both male and female dont want men to be more adventurous. I think this is a new form of bullying


----------



## Leo (30 Mar 2016)

joe sod said:


> I think this is a new form of bullying



Unfortunately there's nothing new in bullying anyone who stands out from the crowd for whatever reason.


----------



## S.L.F (11 Jun 2016)

Purple said:


> I don't see a connection between quotas and feminism as feminism is meant to be about equality. That said we do need more female TD's.



I don't see the connection between feminism and equality as it is feminists who are the ones who have insisted on gender quotas.

Just for reference women have been perfectly represented for for the simple reason that there is no one stopping women from signing up to be election candidates.

That has now changed in that they are insisting on gender quotas in parties.

FYI the number of female independents is what shows the interest women have in politics.

It was 15.6% last time I checked.



Ceist Beag said:


> Can't the very same be said for men!



No, men apparently have privilege.



cremeegg said:


> FF is hardly the most anti woman organisation that is widely supported by women. The Catholic church, Islam, the fashion industry are just three things that spring to mind.
> 
> The oppression of women is usually fully supported by women.



I'd argue that it is not oppression but women's own choices that keep them from attaining the great heights that a few small number of some men have achieved.



so-crates said:


> If that were true (and I think you mean, ultimately the result reflects *the choice* of the electorate), there would be little or no difference between the parties.



The electorate can only vote on what is put in front of them.



so-crates said:


> I think you possibly need to research this a little further. Hostility and discrimination may be on the wane but they are still alive and kicking in Ireland (lovely example recently on Camden street of a women beaten up for being gay and unwilling to acquiesce to an unreasonable request from a lout).



Claimed to have been assaulted.

Her black eye does not look convincing to me.

I also doubt that a scummer at 2am would be calling them "Feminist feckers".

Just like other feminist scare tactics this one looks as fake as fake can be.

If you want to see some serious violence look to what [broken link removed]



so-crates said:


> I would suspect more than one woman would question your assertion regarding the ability of women to follow their preferences and how those preferences are arrived at. The majority of home carers are women and not all of them have had much choice in the matter. Issues around childcare and elderly care affect women disproportionally, there is still a pay gap between men and women and low representation of women in careers as diverse as politics, literature and science as well as low representation of women in the upper echelons of most professions is not due to "when women have the choice their prefer female dominated professions". On International Women's Day - I would suggest you have a good look around.



Exactly what rights/opportunities do men have that women don't?

Re gender pay gap or rather the gender earnings gay see the [broken link removed]



so-crates said:


> Fundamentally women have been grossly under-represented in our legislature for decades - even with the increase in representation in the new Dáil they are still under-represented. This is not due to a preference for female dominated professions.



Ireland has the privilege of being one of the first countries in the world to have a female cabinet Minister.

Women are NOT under represented in the Dáil, is there anyone stopping women from nipping down to their local council offices and signing up to be election candidates?

Maybe there is some burly guy outside stopping them from signing up?

How is it that men have managed to get out of bed and go down and sign up when women just don't seem to have the interest?



Purple said:


> but attitudes towards men, by both women and other men, can be equally discriminatory.



Attitudes towards men by men, women, government and society in general is appalling.

Men get 250% of the punishment for crimes in court (ie women get 40% of the punishment for the exact same crimes).

A husband can be convicted of raping his wife but the reverse does not apply.

Apparently female sex organs can't be used for rape.



Purple said:


> A good measure of the power of a group within society is who spends the money. As most adverts are targeted towards women it is fair to say that the advertising industry regards them as the main spenders. Roll back to the 60's and 70's and most adverts were aimed at men.



A better measure of the power balance is to look who controls the children.

Men don't have automatic right to custody of their own children yet have a responsibility to provide maintenance even if they are not allowed to see their children by either the courts or the will of the mother.

Then of course the fact that in separation proceedings it is normally women who get sole custody of the children and fathers get part time access.

She who rocks the cradle rocks the world.


----------

