Fine Gael proposal to impose quotas of female candidates defeated.

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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?
 
DB74 said:
I don't believe that there is any such thing as "positive discrimination".
Click to expand...

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
 
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top