In Ireland political correctness has just run amok.
The Minister for the Environment Phil Hogan has announced he will institute a rule that 30 per cent of all election candidates must be women.
Parties who refuse to follow that edict will lose half of their state funding.
If you had a prize for the stupidest idea from Ireland this would win.
What next that 30 per cent of midwives must be men?
Or perhaps 30 per cent of miners must be women?
Gender gaps cannot be solved by edicts.
The notion that perfectly capable men must stand aside while a token woman must be chosen goes against the very essence of democracy,
Imagine the outrage if a similar law was introduced into teaching where the vast majority are women?
It would be wrong there, and it is wrong in any professions.
Women themselves should reject this. It means their accomplishments will be devalued rather than appreciated.
Two of the best politicians of the modern era were Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese who were both elected president.
Mary Harney was elected Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Health.
She was a very talented and tough politician too who got nothing handed to her.
That's is the way it should be in life. There are no shortcuts and attempts to create them inevitably fail.
The incompetent men who ran Ireland into the ground in the past decade should be replaced,
But not by token women who will fail to earn any respect if they have not come up the hard and fair way.
In America, women like Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin take their share of abuse and condescension.
But imagine what that abuse would be like if they had gotten into power because of a quota system?
This is really a very stupid idea by this new Irish government showing its first signs of badly over-reaching.
24 Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.Liamkeyes | Jun 09, 2011, 11:26 AM EDT
Mary Harney spent her whole time in Trinity College in the Debating Forum. She has never done a days work in her life, but as the wag remarked: She has'nt missed a bloody thing.
jacersagain | Jun 01, 2011, 05:17 PM EDT
Sure bejaysus mamaginnty should know that I'm only throwing a spanner in the works... which is the right thing to do 'cos the world has gone crazy since wimmen left the home's kitchen sink, dumped their pinnies and bras, dumped their kids with unemployable strangers who kid people to believe that they run playschools during the day. Forget about politicians being qualified to be politicians - by the looks of the way things are goin', there'll soon be no woman qualified to be a mother.
mamaginnty | May 31, 2011, 10:34 AM EDT
Ah Jasus, Jasersagain, (women stay at home with the kids) are ye still running around with a wooden club and leopard skin diaper. Say that to a crowd of women and you will hear some real bitchiness.
maloney | May 29, 2011, 08:52 PM EDT
A woman in every pot will mean you'll need pot in every pipe. The Irish would soon forget all the old problems.
jamthecat | May 29, 2011, 11:52 AM EDT
Listen, I'm a blazing liberal but even I think this is flat-out ridiculous. People SHOULD be elected on their own merits. The whole point of affirmative action was, even when minorities WERE worthy of the job or entry to a college or handling a city contract, they were being ignored or dismissed because of their race, religion, color, creed or sexual orientation. This kind of quota just diminishes the whole idea.
jacersagain | May 29, 2011, 10:55 AM EDT
jaysus seagreen that's a crazy idea! Have you not heard a gaggle of women debating anything? They're such an insulting lot towards each other. Bitchiness reigns supreme.
seagreen | May 29, 2011, 10:37 AM EDT
Elect women to all public office, and end the bickering. Have the men take a break for five years.
jacersagain | May 29, 2011, 09:18 AM EDT
I agree w/ mamaginnty – people going for election should show they have sufficient qualifications beyond having the gift of the gab. As for the 30% rule, forget it – even forget a 50% rule. Let’s go back to sociological and physiological norms – that women stay home to bring up the kids and men go out to work and bring home the bacon. That will end the discussion.
SingleDonald | May 29, 2011, 12:41 AM EDT
Great article! Let good women be elected/appointed on their own merits!
mamaginnty | May 28, 2011, 08:25 PM EDT
Alot of firms do ask for medical reports especially for drug taking, most people applying for a job also have to show C.Vs. So whats good for one should definitly apply to the people looking for a government job.
seanaci | May 28, 2011, 08:06 PM EDT
Does this mean the candidate registration process will now include a medical examination or will a note form a doctor be enough?
mamaginnty | May 28, 2011, 04:17 PM EDT
Male or female, Phil should bring in a rule that they all show thier C.Vs or qualifications...before any election. It has been a family thing for generations, that family are Labour...so they vote for the Labour candidate, no matter whether that person has a brain in his/her head or not. F.F...F.G. its been the same. The younger people are more open to asking questions of the candidate, which is good. So lets see what qualification they have for the job, no head count on how many male or female.
Woodman | May 28, 2011, 03:33 PM EDT
Very honest of Phil Hogan to come out openly and mandate it. Maybe they should also double count the female vote so they can be elected. Race and gender quotas are fairly standard in the but it usually happens without being openly admitted too. No point to it unless they also get the jobs.
kinvara7 | May 28, 2011, 02:43 PM EDT
@Patrick Roberts: You are incorrect when you state that 'there are no shortcuts and attempts to create them inevitably fail' When Norway introduced laws back at the beginning of 2004 aimed at increasing the number of women on company boards, people said it would lead to disaster. Companies would be forced to appoint less-qualified people as board members just because of their gender etc. Now, six years after the introduction of the 40 percent quota, the debate has died down completely. The quota has been successful and has gained broad acceptance. What is more, the calibre of women on company boards is just as high, if not higher than their male counterparts. Radical initatives are needed to shake up the status-quo in politics and in business; once the initial breakthrough is made (and people see that the sky isn't going to fall down around them) the quota wont be necessary. Robert the above was a poorly written, badly thought out article; perhaps there should be more women writing for Irish Central! Instead of discussing the idea in a rational way, you have chosen to litter your opinion with irrelevant and overstated comments.
Jamcelt | May 28, 2011, 12:12 PM EDT
This is as ridiculous as much as it is sexist. Someone needs to pull their head out of their ass.
plebis01 | May 28, 2011, 12:05 PM EDT
I actually laughed when I read the headline!! I thought it was a spoof, not realizing the land of my ancestors could seriously consider this sort of stupidity. This sort of pathetic feel-good nonsense MUST have been imported from California. Absolutely hilarious!! Thanks for the chuckle!! And I thought we were silly here in the U.S.....this takes the cake! LOL! Take my obama - please!
adrienrain | May 28, 2011, 11:45 AM EDT
Those who resent the inclusion of women to the modest measure of just 30% of candidates (not elected official, but candidates!) really should press for a new sort of political leadership, based entirely on such skills as boxing and/or weightlifting. I assure you that if you can create a method of choosing leadership through a series of boxing matches, without respect for weight categories or gender, the percentage of women at the leadership level will diminish greatly, even from its currently very small numbers. It would also create a very vigorous, masculine style of government, for those who worry about such things................
adrienrain | May 28, 2011, 11:37 AM EDT
Good idea. But deciding the gender designation of CANDIDATES will not ensure equal representation for women, which is what we need. For most of recorded human history, women had no legally mandated representation. In other words, we had whatever we could get through whatever means we were in a position to use - and I believe that fact was a major contributor to all the perceived character faults of the female sex. The laws prevailing during those long, male-dominated millennia reflect the absence of a woman's point of view; we were infantilized, demonized, stripped of most "human" rights. We did what we could to manipulate the situation to get what we could from it for ourselves and for our daughters. Too often we regarded other women not as fellow victims of suppression, but as rivals for the crumbs of worldly goods and power we might obtain. Respect was not a given; any woman who achieved artistic or intellectual excellence was easily dismissed as, well, masculine, unfeminine, unnatural, and probably too ugly to matter to men. The evidence of that history indicates that women are not, and possibly can't be, adequately represented by the opposite sex. When Western women, after heroic efforts, achieved the vote, we essentially reshaped ourselves to fit into the established male model. Consequently we have moral monsters like Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, and Maggie Thatcher, who seem to have gotten where they are by proving themselves as ready to use heartless violence as men. What if, women had their own 'house' in parliament, equal to the male house? As with the US bicameral system, cooperation and harmonization of the legislation produced by both houses would be achieved through negotiation. I believe that the priorities of the women legislators would be slightly different. And this is a voice that is still suppressed. After all men don't like being called - ummm, sorry but there's no ladylike way to say this - pussies, do they?
colkelley | May 28, 2011, 11:03 AM EDT
Political correctness and "diversity" have not connection to logic or reality and to expect it means that Patrick Roberts will always be astounded.
Searlit | May 28, 2011, 10:51 AM EDT
eiriamach is right. Mr. Roberts should consider the fact that many of these male politicians are in their positions, simply due to their belonging to the good old boys club - not their qualifications, moral or reasoning abilities.
ellenfromcork | May 28, 2011, 10:32 AM EDT
Ah, Cillowen,you've seen the light. We couldn't do any worse than the men.
cillowen | May 28, 2011, 10:24 AM EDT
why not settle 100% and see what a kock-up will ensue.
ellenfromcork | May 28, 2011, 10:06 AM EDT
It's absolutely wrong that 30% of political candidates should be women, it should be 50%!
eiriamach | May 28, 2011, 07:08 AM EDT
You can call it "political correctness," but we know that it is a struggle only for equal treatment. As Martin Luther King wrote, "Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals." And in economic hard times, there's often a resurgence of the "my group only" mentality, an immoral form of selfishness and exclusion. Wresting control from male parties that are determined to keep it for themselves will not be easy, and women are entitled to the assistance of law in the task because equality of esteem is of value to the entire state, not only to the victims of discrimination. Roberts writes about winning respect, "But not by token women who will fail to earn any respect if they have not come up the hard and fair way." "Hard and fair" too often means "when we're ready to allow you." The examples cited in the article show that exclusion is not about lack of qualifications: Hanley, McAleese, etc. are more than qualified for their positions. It's discrimination, whether deliberate or the result of unthinking identification of males with males. In the US, we apply affirmative action--no quotas--only an insistence that wherever qualified women and minorities exist, the pool of candidates must include them. In politics, we must let the voters should decide, not the 'ole boys' club!