In the early 1980s my union did an exercise in attracting more female members to participate. It worked, to a certain extent, the changes initiated doubled the number of women attending union meetings, it also doubled the number of men attending – which preserved the gender imbalance! Which suggests that many of the reasons given for "gender imbalance" in politics - family friendly – time – place – terminology – structure etc aren't things that put women off politics but are things that put people off politics.
The family friendly argument is popular but doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Because of the distances travelled, by virtue of being held in two different places and because of the huge size of each constituency the most family unfriendly of elected offices is the MEP, where Wales currently has 50 / 50 gender balance and has been fairly well represented by women since the first elections in the 1970's. If a lack of family friendliness was the real reason for gender imbalance in politics 40% of all MEPs ever elected in Wales would not have been women.
If any party offered me a safe seat as an MEP I wouldn't accept it, I cannot think of a worse job in elected politics, I wouldn't fight tooth and nail for it, any boy or girl who wants the job is welcome to it!
And that is the real rub in gender politics – when men stand it has sod all to do with gender it's to do with ME. I stood for election to my community council last year. If eleven women were elected and I was the only man elected, I couldn't give a shit about the men who lost, as long as I won!
I stood so that I could be a community councillor not so that a man could hold that role. I stood as an individual who hoped to contribute to the council not as a male!
The feminist movement, to a certain extent, has homogenised female politics. A woman stands election for womanhood rather than just as a candidate for her party, and that is wrong!
If I vote for Leanne (through her party) in the next election my support will be based on what we have in common between our ears and in our hearts not on the differences between our legs!
I want Wales to be an independent and successful country I don't care about the gender balance, disability balance, racial balance etc that delivers a free Wales; I just care about the deliverance!
Tripe from Alwyn - as you'll see from this post: http://penartharbyd.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/gender-balance/
ReplyDeleteThe contention is based on the laughable example of MEPs. There are just 4 MEPs in Wales, so it's actually not that surprising that half of them are women. Alwyn, feel free to rejoin this debate from a more informed position once you've got any statistically valid evidence to support your contentions. This paper might fill in some of the gaps: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/images/dynamicImages/file/Wales/Women%20and%20local%20government%20in%20Wales.pdf
There have actually been 21 MEP's from Wales of which there have been 8 women, so not quite as statistically insignificant,if you want a more significant number however look at the Town & Community Councils of Wales where two thirds of the councillors are male despite the fact that these councils are so "family friendly" that they only meet for about 1 hour per month.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to take part in an informed debate it might help if you engaged in debate rather than insult.
I've no time for gender politics either. All that counts,is if the person is the best for the job, having said that there ARE problems with people standing for office and indeed maintaining their position if they have some disablement. Recently two councillors were forced to retire because of hearing loss, not just because of that loss, but because provision to follow was refused, and because fellow councillors exploited the fact the individuals concerned had this loss, making their job untenable. That was clear discrimination, as for setting aside x amount of seats for women, gays, ethnic or any other sector, this is stupid and counter-productive, voters won't buy it. In reality a disabled person is always negatively viewed by voters and politicians alike, that needs to change given there are 8 million voters with some issue. They need to thank their party Gods this sector never unites against them.
ReplyDeleteIt's to do with political parties as one kind of organisation, rather than politics as such. Simply if someone rises high enough in any organisation to be selecting others for recruitment or advancement, then it's natural for them to look for the qualities in the candidates that they think the organisation needs. Evidently the person doing the selection has the right qualities to succeed within the organisation ... it's not rocket science that's why people who rise in any hierarchy tend to converge in outlook and appearance, amongst other things. Some people think this unfair on people who look different for one reason or another. That's as may be, but objectively it's probably not very healthy for the particular organisation itself in the longer term.
ReplyDeleteAs far as elections are concerned, it probably wouldn't be an issue except where people tend to be voted in on party lines rather than as individuas.
Maybe female emancipation has worked against them ? as it has with disability areas. Equality means you must now prove ability to compete equally, the problem is there is no support to do that. This worse for those disabled than for those who are women with no issues otherwise. Any suggestion of preference will defeat the point.
ReplyDeleteIn the last few decades, identity politics has taken off. In an ideal world nobody would think about a candidate's sex or ethinicity or whether or not they were disabled. It would just be personality, policies and capability that mattered. I have no opinion on whether positive discrimination is a good thing, but even if it is, it should be a stop gap measure. If the world ever gets to the level of maturity that these irrelevant considerations are no longer important, it won't be needed. There's no doubt that it can lead to unfairness on an individual level.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing wrong, of course, in standing up for the rights of an oppressed group to which you happen to belong. But ideally we would stand up for any oppressed person, not because of a fortuitous identity but because they are human and so are we.
Marianne Y Fenni
Gender politics has seriously undermined rights issues of others by the state's obsession of prioritising them. It was bad in the USA where Gay rights almost sank an deaf national charity by trying to undermine their message, in favour of their own. Now we have a 'pecking order' of 'equal rights' e.g. It was said disabled rights were 23rd below gender and black/ethnic or religious rights, even whales got a higher priority. Most of the issue is S.E. England based, the home of looney tunes and bias, London and the 'home counties' have the largest concentration of rights lobbies in the UK. As such and because more people live there than in all Wales, we are always going to come last. Roll on independence. Cameron's bleating about clamping down on these lobbies is pie-in-the-sky, as we see most politicians are doing quite nicely thank you with back handers. His duality about addressing Human Rights is also fake, he only wants to take away worker/disabilities rights and others, not address the total chaos of European mindless and faceless non-elected reps who churn out this nonsense 7 days a week and thus we are a nation dictated to by groups of huge vested interest, no wonder charities are hiring these professional and political lobbies too.
ReplyDeleteKatharine Quarmsby in her book 'Scapegoat' predicted that disability activism - which she did support - would inevitably trigger a backlash. That is what happened. It is what always happens. But perhaps it is only in the short term.
ReplyDeleteMarianne Y Fenni