"Do we need gender quotas to ensure women are fairly represented?"

[Christine Murray]

what do you think Christine, do we nee quotas?

I am reporting the debate, but I will venture the opinion that there are areas of failure in policy that require a
gendered approach and if the political parties do not take on board that they are failing, then yep! I think we
need quotas.

Often women who do not opinionate on issues are to be found sitting on their arses agreeing with the boys on
everything and not opening their mouths, that's failure.

Though I'd settle to see adequately funded women's lobby groups in Politcal parties.

[Almanac]

No of course women don't need quotas.

There will always be more men than women in politics, and this is perfectly normal.

[Toland]

It begs the questions:

Do women need special representation ?
Could only women perform this special representation ?

Then for example do {gays, midgets , fat people, country people, bricklayers, old people etc} need special representation ?

cYp

Or aggressive secularists?

[toughbutfair]

Women are fairly represented. 100% of the women the people vote for get a seat in the dail.

[Christine Murray]

Speaking from the point of view of ex-membership of a political party, I can say that lip-service is paid on issues
of quotas, a party may change it's constitution to 50%/50%, 60%/40% at selection but that means absolutely
nothing in real terms, unless it is is done at grassroot level. This means ensuring funding to active women's groups,
adequate meeting spaces and regional/national co-ordination. It doesn't happen, so theres nowt to be scared of!

[paulp]

I am reporting the debate, but I will venture the opinion that there are areas of failure in policy that require a
gendered approach and if the political parties do not take on board that they are failing, then yep! I think we
need quotas.

Often women who do not opinionate on issues are to be found sitting on their arses agreeing with the boys on
everything and not opening their mouths, that's failure.

Though I'd settle to see adequately funded women's lobby groups in Politcal parties.

Do you see more equal political representation as an end in itself, or a means to securing better performance from our political system?

['orebel]

Or aggressive secularists?

Especially aggressive secularists.

[Bobert]

In 1973 Maragret Thatcher was asked about the feasibility of a female Prime Minister. She answered with;

I think it depends on who the person is. I don’t think there will be a woman Prime Minister in my lifetime. And I don’t think it depends so much on whether it’s a man Prime Minister or a woman Prime Minister as whether that person is the right person for the job at that time. And it’s very difficult to foresee what may happen many, many years ahead.

Mrs. Thatcher was a woman, this much is true. She was also a very logical and sensible person who always acted in what she thought would be most beneficial for her country and society. Given that today is International Woman’s Day I thought I’d address the subject of gender quotas in the national parliament.

So according to David Farrell of UCD, of the world’s 77 democracies, Ireland comes joint 54th in the number of women MPs. There are 23 women out of 166 TDs in Dáil Éireann. Firstly, I don’t see this as a problem but some people do. To me the number of female TDs is about as relevant as the number of TDs who smoke or the amount who drive. Off course the argument that “Well more women would show how progressive we are and those women would look out for women’s interests.”

Off course, this is true but in terms of the national parliament’s purpose, this is not it’s duty. Its duty is to legislate for all sections of society in spite of the gender of parliamentarians. There are off course ways for more women to become involved in politics. Indeed, any woman can put herself forward as a candidate, and indeed, any party can select a woman to be a candidate. Seeing as well that the overall choice rests with the electorate, most parties will select a candidate who they think can win and in most cases gender is irrelevant.

To pass over a better male candidate in favour of a female one is stupid and sexism in itself. In fact, it is the worst type of sexism as it suggests women are totally inept and can only be elected if measures are introduced to ensure this. My own suggestion is a humble one; we all recognise that women make valuable contributions to society as do men and that they are just as capable as men in government and therefore should be given every opportunity to represent their constituency at all levels once they can get elected. If not, we won’t whinge about it.


Oh, and 8 years after she answered that question, Margaret Hilda Thatcher became the first and only female Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a result of her own intelligence and hard graft.

[MPB]

If we elected 166 women to the next Dáil, from a slate of candidates selected even at random from the ranks of women in the home, in community development, in the professions, in education, signing on or in business, we might just turn this country around.

If you sacked one, you might just save yourself a lot of hardship.

[Christine Murray]

In 1973 Maragret Thatcher was asked about the feasibility of a female Prime Minister. She answered with;Mrs. Thatcher was a woman, this much is true. She was also a very logical and sensible person who always acted in what she thought would be most beneficial for her country and society. Given that today is International Woman’s Day I thought I’d address the subject of gender quotas in the national parliament.

So according to David Farrell of UCD, of the world’s 77 democracies, Ireland comes joint 54th in the number of women MPs. There are 23 women out of 166 TDs in Dáil Éireann. Firstly, I don’t see this as a problem but some people do. To me the number of female TDs is about as relevant as the number of TDs who smoke or the amount who drive. Off course the argument that “Well more women would show how progressive we are and those women would look out for women’s interests.”

Off course, this is true but in terms of the national parliament’s purpose, this is not it’s duty. Its duty is to legislate for all sections of society in spite of the gender of parliamentarians. There are off course ways for more women to become involved in politics. Indeed, any woman can put herself forward as a candidate, and indeed, any party can select a woman to be a candidate. Seeing as well that the overall choice rests with the electorate, most parties will select a candidate who they think can win and in most cases gender is irrelevant.

To pass over a better male candidate in favour of a female one is stupid and sexism in itself. In fact, it is the worst type of sexism as it suggests women are totally inept and can only be elected if measures are introduced to ensure this. My own suggestion is a humble one; we all recognise that women make valuable contributions to society as do men and that they are just as capable as men in government and therefore should be given every opportunity to represent their constituency at all levels once they can get elected. If not, we won’t whinge about it.


Oh, and 8 years after she answered that question, Margaret Hilda Thatcher became the first and only female Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a result of her own intelligence and hard graft.

Oh, absolutely hard graft is necessary, sure we can see how hard our TDs work and how fit they all are from being
up all night resolving national problems alright.

Opening off-licences and hob-nobbing with crappy pop-bands being the hallmark of FF/PD/Green