• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

We dont need more women in politics


seabhcan

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
14,327
The 'reform' discussion seems to have fixated on the idea that more women TDs will mean better laws. This is nonsense. Our problem is that a small group of political families and a certain set of professions supply most of our TDs. Measures to bring in more women, without other reforms, will just result in more women solicitors and teachers becoming TDs, and more daughters from political families entering the dail, and fewer sons.

Thus, no real change.

What we need are more scientists, engineers, and other professions, regardless of their gender. We need more numerate TDs. More TDs with professional life experience, and fewer TDs who have inherited their father/mother's seat at a young age.

I'd like to see the age limit raised to 30, to ensure that all TDs had a life and career before politics. I'd also like to see training programs and funding to get people from underrepresented professions to make the jump. Currently, the only practical way to learn the nitty-grity 'how' of entering politics in Ireland is to have political relatives who can teach you. Its like an old medieval trade, passed from father to son. It wont change anything just swap sons for daughters.

We need to professionalise politics.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,215
Your arguments don't support your conclusion - it doesn't follow from the claim that other reforms are necessary that this one isn't also necessary.
 

ruserious

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
29,597
Feminista Reformers claim that men do not represent them in politics. This is simply, wrong, I've voted for women before and I would again. It does not matter what's between the legs, but between the ears.
Women have been TD's, Junior Ministers, Cabinet Ministers, Tánaiste and President. The 'problem' is over-stated in my opinion.
 
R

Ramps

You're right...and wrong.

What we need are fewer politicians, with fewer powers. The sex of those whom we do need shouldn't even come in to it.
 

EUrJokingMeRight

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
11,840
People who reduce politics to sex are devoid of any intelligence and should be fined and/or jailed for sex hate crimes.

How's that?
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,717
I 'liked' your op Seabhcan

but isn't the LP probably the biggest promoter of gender equality in politics?
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
50,459
A career which demands late night Dáil sittings, appearances on tv and radio late in the evening, sitting in clinics at the weekends, etc., is never going to attract very many people with well rounded lives. What sort of family person would sign up to that?

You could have 100 women in there, and they will all be a certain type of woman – much the same as the certain type of man in there, at present.

Fix the system – a 9-5 parliament would be a decent start. Maybe with an onsite crèche. And proper local democracy to take away the need for regular clinics.

THEN, we might start getting a decent parliament.
 

Quadrangle

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
81
The argument that bringing in scientists or engineers seems rooted in the idea that the problem with politics is politicans not being smart enough. I just don't buy that argument. The system is too complex to be meddled with by tinkering with monetary policy. If anything, bringing in scientists would result in more meddling and therefore increase the severity of the boom/bust cycles. The real problem is that when you support meddling in any way, intelligent people game the system and use the meddlings tools to their own benefit rather than the benefit of society at large.
 

seabhcan

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
14,327
A career which demands late night Dáil sittings, appearances on tv and radio late in the evening, sitting in clinics at the weekends, etc., is never going to attract very many people with well rounded lives. What sort of family person would sign up to that?

You could have 100 women in there, and they will all be a certain type of woman – much the same as the certain type of man in there, at present.

Fix the system – a 9-5 parliament would be a decent start. Maybe with an onsite crèche. And proper local democracy to take away the need for regular clinics.

THEN, we might start getting a decent parliament.
They tried the 9-5 thing in the UK under Blair, for reasons I am unclear on it didn't work and they switched back.

I agree on the roll being family unfriendly, but plenty of well-rounded people have grown up kids or none at all. I don't think its the biggest issue. A bigger problem is that for many professionals, they don't know how to go about entering politics.

The state already funds training course for people to start their own businesses. It works very well. The same should be done for people with an interest in politics.
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,717
Maybe. I'm a member, I don't set policy.
Have you taken it up with your branch or do you prefer to attack LP policy on the web?
 

seabhcan

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
14,327
The argument that bringing in scientists or engineers seems rooted in the idea that the problem with politics is politicans not being smart enough. I just don't buy that argument. The system is too complex to be meddled with by tinkering with monetary policy. If anything, bringing in scientists would result in more meddling and therefore increase the severity of the boom/bust cycles. The real problem is that when you support meddling in any way, intelligent people game the system and use the meddlings tools to their own benefit rather than the benefit of society at large.
The problem isn't 'smarts', its that they are all the same. They all have the same backgrounds and view points. That leads to group-think. We need a better mix.

If our TDs were 95% engineers, I would be arguing for more lawyers and teachers.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,215
The problem isn't 'smarts', its that they are all the same. They all have the same backgrounds and view points. That leads to group-think. We need a better mix.

If our TDs were 95% engineers, I would be arguing for more lawyers and teachers.
Does anyone really vote for their TD on the basis that they have an underrepresented background? We rarely have the option of choosing between two sufficiently competent representatives such that employment background could be used as a tie-breaker.
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
50,459
They tried the 9-5 thing in the UK under Blair, for reasons I am unclear on it didn't work and they switched back.

I agree on the roll being family unfriendly, but plenty of well-rounded people have grown up kids or none at all. I don't think its the biggest issue. A bigger problem is that for many professionals, they don't know how to go about entering politics.

The state already funds training course for people to start their own businesses. It works very well. The same should be done for people with an interest in politics.
I wouldn’t mind giving politics a stab. However, I have a life. I like being involved in my children’s lives. I like to be there for Lady SIL. Why oh why oh why would I even contemplate giving that up, in order to – at best – become bank bench cannon fodder for some party which is more interested in having power for power’s sake, than it is in actually implementing creative policies?

A parliament should be representative of the country. It shouldn’t just be for career politicians, or the sort of business people who pleasure in being away from their families 24/7.

I’m not some family fundamentalist, but I think that there is a large chunk of the population which could well have great ideas and experiences, but they take on look at politics and think, “not for me”.
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,717
The problem isn't 'smarts', its that they are all the same. They all have the same backgrounds and view points. That leads to group-think. We need a better mix.

If our TDs were 95% engineers, I would be arguing for more lawyers and teachers.
It's worth looking at the reasons why certain professions opt for politics and why others don't.

Probably the main factor is job security. If a safe return to your old position is guaranteed you'll be far more likely to consider putting your name in the hat. This is the reason we have so many ex teachers.

On the other hand, very few employers can afford to hold a position for an engineer while she experiments with a new vocation.
 

seabhcan

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
14,327
It's worth looking at the reasons why certain professions opt for politics and why others don't.

Probably the main factor is job security. If a safe return to your old position is guaranteed you'll be far more likely to consider putting your name in the hat. This is the reason we have so many ex teachers.

On the other hand, very few employers can afford to hold a position for an engineer while she experiments with a new vocation.
True, but plenty of professionals find themselves between jobs at various points in their lives, and some of those might take a stab at politics if the route was more clear.
 

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
33,553
The 'reform' discussion seems to have fixated on the idea that more women TDs will mean better laws. This is nonsense. Our problem is that a small group of political families and a certain set of professions supply most of our TDs. Measures to bring in more women, without other reforms, will just result in more women solicitors and teachers becoming TDs, and more daughters from political families entering the dail, and fewer sons.

Thus, no real change.

What we need are more scientists, engineers, and other professions, regardless of their gender. We need more numerate TDs. More TDs with professional life experience, and fewer TDs who have inherited their father/mother's seat at a young age.

I'd like to see the age limit raised to 30, to ensure that all TDs had a life and career before politics. I'd also like to see training programs and funding to get people from underrepresented professions to make the jump. Currently, the only practical way to learn the nitty-grity 'how' of entering politics in Ireland is to have political relatives who can teach you. Its like an old medieval trade, passed from father to son. It wont change anything just swap sons for daughters.

We need to professionalise politics.
Could not agree with this as:
1. The need to tackle the issue of political dynasties is a different onefrom gender balancing the Parliament
2. The most successful democracies have taken positive action regarding gender balancing and have succeeded accordingly for e.g.

The majority of managers in municipal, county council and central government are women (52 percent). Almost half (45 percent) of all Swedish members of parliament and 46 percent of government ministers are women.
Gender equality: The Swedish approach to fairness - SWEDEN.SE
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
48,255
I wonder if you'd be posting the same thread about men if men, making up 50% of the population had never made up more than 14% of TDs?:roll:
 
Top