Fine Gael proposal to impose quotas of female candidates defeated.

[Vanilla]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Vanilla]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

I don't know the answer to this. Do you?

It is generally accepted that political parties in the first instance have the greatest influence over who will be elected in any given election- this is due to the selection process of candidates.

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.

Quotas, of course, are not enough- they are merely a means to fast-tracking us to more equal representation. What we need are legal, cultural and societal shifts but these are slow unless we can implement a more equal representation in the first place.

 

[csirl]

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]

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]

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]

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

Okay, how?

 

[Latrade]

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]

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.