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.
as well of course as having a pretty enlightened approach to life generally.
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.
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.
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.
I don't believe that there is any such thing as "positive discrimination".
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).
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 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.
I've never been told by a man that he voted for a particular candidate because he was a man.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?