Gender Quotas

[Keen2win]

As discussed on Primetime, the issue of gender quotas in the political and business spheres are being mooted.

http://www.independent.ie/business/world/gender-quotas-up-for-debate-across-eu-as-men-dominate-26828900.html

Obviously women are under represented, but surely to bring in quotas compromises democracy, and may often lead to women getting positions on the back of them being a woman?

There are better ways of trying to increase female participation, but the notion of gender quotas does not help those women that, for whatever reason, can't and won't put themselves forward for political positions. Remember, in the last general election, the group with the lowest proportion of female candidates was independents!

Equality of opportunity, not outcome!

Edit: Link to Primetime debate http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10116015/

[DannyInvincible]

At a social level, affirmative action is all well and good in chipping away at long-established inequalities and compensating for possible institutional prejudice. Equality of opportunity is also something that is extremely difficult to guarantee, but how do you justify what is still a form of discrimination (albeit with positive intentions) on a personal level?

I think it can also depreciate achievement and leave those recruited or employed on such a basis vulnerable to accusations like "you only got the job because you're a woman" or whatever, rather than as a result of merit/qualifications.

[mypost]

Load of rubbish tbh.

It's not going to make any difference regarding how many women get elected. Politics is a hostile dog-eat-dog world, the kind of profession that appeals to more men than women, and it will always be so.

[DannyInvincible]

Why will it always appeal more to men than to women exactly? I know plenty of females who are political.

[Keen2win]

I'm sure for certain women it appeals just as much, maybe more. However, he is making the point that overall, more men than women are willing and want to get involved.

I think I'd agree.

[DannyInvincible]

But why should or will that always be so?

[Charlie Darwin]

Why would gender quotas compromise democracy?

[BonnieShels]

I'm pretty opposed to the idea of enforced quotas on the basis of the sex of the candidate.

If a woman or a man wants to become a politician then so be it... If they get elected... so be it... if they don't... so be it.

[Keen2win]

But why should or will that always be so?
I never said it should be. And for the reason Mypost stated, I'll leave it to him to explain himself if he wants to.


Why would gender quotas compromise democracy?
As per Wiki, "Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally", quotas compromise the "participate equally" part imho.

[BonnieShels]

As per Wiki, "Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally", quotas compromise the "participate equally" part imho.

Bingo

[Charlie Darwin]

As per Wiki, "Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally", quotas compromise the "participate equally" part imho.
How so? Gender quotas would only apply to political parties. Whose rights are affected by Fine Gael being required to choose at least 30% female candidates instead of the usual 15% or whatever?

[Keen2win]

How so? Gender quotas would only apply to political parties. Whose rights are affected by Fine Gael being required to choose at least 30% female candidates instead of the usual 15% or whatever?

The rights of these lads, the independent link is down so I will link this post!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83043543&postcount=1

(Ain't a user of The Gentleman's Club, just done a quick search on boards :) )

[Charlie Darwin]

The rights of these lads, the independent link is down so I will link this post!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83043543&postcount=1

(Ain't a user of The Gentleman's Club, just done a quick search on boards :) )
The poor boys! Look, candidates are chosen by party strategists. There is nothing remotely democratic about the selection process, beyond leaving banker candidates in areas they traditionally have a lot of support. The situation isn't as dire as Fionnan Sheahan makes out - a few of those 73 will decide they don't want to run again, either because they plan on retiring or they see the writing on the wall as regards being booted out. Any forward-thinking party will have been making provisions for this legislation for the couple of years it's been mooted and will now be in a position to benefit by recruiting the most promising female candidates.

The idea that gender quotas in some way impinge upon men's rights is ridiculous - the only real-world effect it has is to force a bunch of lads in suits to be a little bit more fair in the way they decide what narrow range of conservative, uncontroversial names they put on our ballot paper.

[DannyInvincible]

I never said it should be. And for the reason Mypost stated, I'll leave it to him to explain himself if he wants to.

Why do you think more men than women are willing and want to get involved at present?

[peadar1987]

In my opinion, the disparity comes down to two things: Parties put forward candidates based on who they think are most likely to get elected, and men are in general more prejudiced against women than vice versa. Therefore parties are going to favour male candidates, because the sexist electorate is more likely to vote for them.

I think society will gradually leave such prejudices largely behind them. Until then, I believe quotas only cause resentment, and ultimately harm progress.

[Eminence Grise]

There are all sorts of reasons why women don’t participate in electoral politics in Ireland –some cultural, some historic, some social.

One of the big historical factors is that instead of a having a suffragist movement at a time when other European countries were, we were engaged in a 30 year cultural nationalist revival ending in seven years of intermittent warfare. The only political outlets for women that then mattered were the two sides of that coin – nationalism its varied guises, or unionism. After independence, women moved (or were shunted) into the background. Organisations like Cumann na mBan, which had been particularly active and socially embedded, virtually disappeared from the mainstream. Women were encouraged to use their skills in soft areas: church sodalities, charities, ICA, etc. If you think that the first female minister after Countess Markiewicz was Maire Geoghegan Quinn, you can see the decades long effect of removing women from politics. Add to that social expectations of motherhood and homemaking, and the influence of religion and it’s clear that the odds have been stacked against them.

There’s a theory, though, that suggests that women operate parallel to politics, creating social linkages rather than political ones: it’s the theory that points to the number of women involved at a senior level in NGOs, charities and advocacy groups that actually have a substantial impact through lobbying on government policy. So: invisible in the combative front line of politics, but effective in behind the scenes policymaking.

I’m against gender quotas. They leave women vulnerable to being scorned as ‘only a quota TD’ and having no merits or qualifications in consequence, or having to be seen as ‘ball-breaking b1tches’ to fit in with the lads. (Two words used by female students in my class on this topic recently).

There are things that could be done to increase the number of female politicians at national level, but most require some kind of systemic intervention: changing the electoral system, reducing the constituency workload on national politicians etc. Some easier things might be to allow video-conferencing for Oireachtas committee meetings, to improve crèche facilities in the Oireachtas, or to legislate so that the alternates lists for the European Parliament and local council elections have women in the first three spots. Yes, it’s artificial and they wouldn’t be elected, but it doesn’t have the negative ring of a quota.

[Spudulika]

I'll have to double check as it may be gone from 2 years ago, but there was a stipulation in Croatian law where minorities HAD to have elected representatives in government. So there was a Gypsy member, some Serbs, Hungarian etc. It was based on the size of the population (of the group) but also in giving them a voice. So go the whole hog - go ott. Make it 49-49-2 (Men-Women-Transgender) and elect a Dail like this. Otherwise it's just giving free seats for no good reason. Next it'll be travellers claiming to be an ethnic group - oh wait.

[Mr A]

Not sure that the parties would favour men because they're seen as having a better chance- I remember seeing somewhere that the success rate of female politicians was pretty much identical to that of men.

I think quotas should be an absolute last resort. There has to be a better way of evening things out.

[Real ale Madrid]

We should start a campaign for sex changes amongst TD's.

Enda Kenny could become Edna Kenny for starters.
Micheal Martin could become Michelle Martin...
John Burton could become Joan Burton etc etc.....

[Eminence Grise]

Great idea, Richelle Madrid!;)

[osarusan]

Having greater numbers of women in politics is something I'd imagine few people would object to.

The question is whether quotas help this by forcing an artificial increase in the number of women which helps build a social acceptance/tradition of women in politics, evantually leading to a genuine increase. Or whether quotas simply give the appearance of having dealt with the lack of women in politics, and mean that there is less motivation to bring about the social changes necessary for a genuine increase.

[DannyInvincible]

There are all sorts of reasons why women don’t participate in electoral politics in Ireland –some cultural, some historic, some social.

One of the big historical factors is that instead of a having a suffragist movement at a time when other European countries were, we were engaged in a 30 year cultural nationalist revival ending in seven years of intermittent warfare. The only political outlets for women that then mattered were the two sides of that coin – nationalism its varied guises, or unionism. After independence, women moved (or were shunted) into the background. Organisations like Cumann na mBan, which had been particularly active and socially embedded, virtually disappeared from the mainstream. Women were encouraged to use their skills in soft areas: church sodalities, charities, ICA, etc. If you think that the first female minister after Countess Markiewicz was Maire Geoghegan Quinn, you can see the decades long effect of removing women from politics. Add to that social expectations of motherhood and homemaking, and the influence of religion and it’s clear that the odds have been stacked against them.

There’s a theory, though, that suggests that women operate parallel to politics, creating social linkages rather than political ones: it’s the theory that points to the number of women involved at a senior level in NGOs, charities and advocacy groups that actually have a substantial impact through lobbying on government policy. So: invisible in the combative front line of politics, but effective in behind the scenes policymaking.

I’m against gender quotas. They leave women vulnerable to being scorned as ‘only a quota TD’ and having no merits or qualifications in consequence, or having to be seen as ‘ball-breaking b1tches’ to fit in with the lads. (Two words used by female students in my class on this topic recently).

Good post, and interesting. I thought there was a hint in an earlier post that woman weren't cut out for politics and never would be, perhaps because the poster felt they lacked (genetically/biologically) some essential or necessary trait required for the "dog-eat-dog" world of politics. Which is insulting nonsense, of course. Perhaps he can clarify?

This piece was written by a Canadian feminist blogger, Jarrah Hodge, and isn't exactly recent, but I feel it is relevant to the general thread: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jarrah-hodge/women-politics_b_888009.html


On Monday, Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett wrote a well-intentioned but misguided column (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/hon-carolyn-bennett/women-politics_b_878690.html) on one of my pet issues: women in politics.

It's no secret that I'm a New Democrat, but as a feminist I have a certain amount of respect for Bennett. She's brought forward (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/12/19/12218571.html) some important but less-than-popular issues like concerns about toxic chemicals in sex toys and she's one of the leading figures in her party working on increased women's representation.

Both Bennett and I agree we need to do better on women's representation in our legislatures: it's sad that only 25 per cent of our Parliament is female, even if it is the highest number we've turned out yet. But where I take issue with Bennett's argument is why we need more women. In "Why Politics Is Too Important to Leave to the Men (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/hon-carolyn-bennett/women-politics_b_878690.html)," Bennett contends women are innately suited to a peaceful, consensus-based, egalitarian style of governing.

Bennett uses her background as a medical doctor to argue that men and women think and behave differently due to their biology :"What is discussed changes; more time on health, child care, and environmental concerns. How issues are discussed also changes. More consensus-driven win-win approaches replace the 'gotcha,' 'winners and losers,' testosterone-driven triumphalism of politics as usual," she states.

Bennett also quotes The Female Brain author Louann Brizendine (whose research has been challenged on the left and right), who states: "Outstanding verbal ability, the ability to connect deeply in friendship, a near psychic capacity to read faces and tone of voice for emotions and states of mind. The ability to defuse conflict. All this is hardwired into the brains of women."

There are a few issues with Brizendine's argument. First, it's extremely difficult for biological research to control for social constructions of gender. Biologists like Anne Fausto-Sterling have found that many studies purporting to explain gender differences in terms of biology are in fact mistaking socialized traits for genetic ones. Further, trans, intersex, and non-gender-conforming cis people challenge the idea that there is a biological binary that assigns traits like aggression, nurturing instinct, and cooperativeness by sex.

If being a woman means you're going to advance women's issues in government, how do you explain the women politicians who seem to want to turn back the clock on women's equality? For example, on a number of occasions (http://www.gender-focus.com/2010/12/09/bill-c-510-patronizes-women-seeking-abortions/), Conservative backbenchers have introduced private members bills that would restrict abortion rights.

Although none of these bills passed under a minority government, they were supported by various Conservative women (http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/list-antichoice-mps-may-11.html), including Rona Ambrose (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2008/06/06/ambrose_defends_tory_fetal_rights_bill.html) and Diane Ablonczy ("Unborn Victims of Crime Act"), and Lynne Yelich (http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Federal_Voting_Records&id=306) ("Act to Prevent Coercion of Pregnant Women to Abort"). The argument that women politicians will advance women's issues doesn't account for these women, or the Michele Bachmanns of the world.

Second, the very argument that women are innately good at nurturing is anti-feminist. It's actually the same argument that's been used to keep women out of politics, making sure that when mothers run for office they get questioned about how they're making sure their children are taken care of. It's the argument that pressures and shames women who don't want to have children. Ironically, it's the argument that keeps women who do get into politics in the "girl ministries" of health care, education, and social programs.

These are important issues and there's nothing wrong with being a woman (or person of any gender) who is nurturing. But feminists have spent decades fighting for more choices for women, and the argument that women would be better at governing because they're more maternal only turns back the clock and takes away credibility from the push for equal representation.

Bennett also argues that women enter politics for different reasons and that they're more likely to stay in touch with the plight of average Canadians.

"These successful women determined to make a difference stand in stark contrast to those (unfortunately mostly men) who were all too eager to suit up in their team jersey and run with no other purpose than to repeat their party's talking points verbatim," Bennett states.

Again, I would argue this is mainly due to gender socialization that trains women to cultivate empathy and avoid bragging and appearing too ambitious.

We can fight for equality without being forced to promote outdated biological arguments. We can argue for equality in our parliaments because 52 per cent of the population has just as much to offer as the other 48 per cent. We can challenge unequal representation on the grounds that concentrating political power in the hands of (mostly) straight, white men is the result of systemic discrimination and is patently unfair.

We can say that the wider variety of backgrounds and perspectives included in policy-making, the better.

But, unfortunately the only mention of structural barriers Bennett makes in her post is: "Structural barriers remain to getting more women elected."

So much of the gap is due to structural barriers: women's lower earnings potential, political parties' "old boy's club" informal mentoring systems, and plain old discrimination. At least Bennett touches on internalized sexism that convinces women they aren't up to the job and its confrontational elements.

Politics is a patriarchal system, and women aren't going to change that simply by being women: we need politicians of all genders who are feminists to make a real difference. I believe all parties need to work internally and take strong action to ensure they run gender-balanced slates. I'd like to see a world where I can choose between women of all political stripes, but for now when it comes down to it on election day, I would rather vote for anyone who believes in same-sex marriage, abortion rights, and trans legal protections than a woman who wants to take away basic women's rights.

I want the same thing as Carolyn Bennett: more women in politics. I think we can fight for equality because it's our right. But let's stop arguing along the lines of that old saying: "If women ruled the world, there would be no more war." It just doesn't hold water.

[mypost]

In my opinion, Parties put forward candidates based on who they think are most likely to get elected. Therefore parties are going to favour male candidates, because the sexist electorate is more likely to vote for them.

Nothing to do with a sexist electorate. You only have to look at the 2008 American primary election to see what women think of politics. They had Hilary Clinton, apparantly a sure tip to unite half the country's electorate in votes. What did women do? Go and vote for her male opponent in droves.

Women themselves turn away from politics because of the long, unsocial hours. Politics isn't the people-oriented profession they like. They had 20-odd TD's 20 years ago, they have 20-odd TD's now. The vast majority of them are just not interested, and quotas are not going to see TD numbers rise.


I’m against gender quotas. They leave women vulnerable to being scorned as ‘only a quota TD’ and having no merits or qualifications in consequence.

And how is that different to the likes of Collins and Murphy in the Dail now?

Even for men, surely RBB got elected on his ability to arrange a protest and howl at the moon. And as for Wallace, he doesn't even run clinics ffs, and is the laughing stock of the Dail.

[DannyInvincible]

Having greater numbers of women in politics is something I'd imagine few people would object to.

Jesus, in this day and age, you'd hope so!

[DannyInvincible]

Women themselves turn away from politics because of the long, unsocial hours. Politics isn't the people-oriented profession they like.

How do you know that?

[peadar1987]

Nothing to do with a sexist electorate. You only have to look at the 2008 American primary election to see what women think of politics. They had Hilary Clinton, apparantly a sure tip to unite half the country's electorate in votes. What did women do? Go and vote for her male opponent in droves.

Women themselves turn away from politics because of the long, unsocial hours. Politics isn't the people-oriented profession they like. They had 20-odd TD's 20 years ago, they have 20-odd TD's now. The vast majority of them are just not interested, and quotas are not going to see TD numbers rise.

I'm not sure that means what you think it means.

Women are generally less sexist than men, or at least, less sexist in the "this is what happens when you leave a woman in charge" way. Almost no women will refuse to vote for a man because of his gender, whereas plenty of men would refuse to vote for a woman. Having Hilary wasn't going to swing over that many female voters, but it may well have turned away huge numbers of sexist male voters.