Political Staples

Considering the fact that women account for more than half of the population and that anyone with the drive can run for politics (and women are just as capable as men at fundraising), I think that the problem lies not with any particular institution. What women should be asking themselves is why aren’t we running for politics?

More ominously, on the psychological front a more shocking idea arises: if indeed women are running for public office in comparable numbers to men, then why aren’t women voting for them?

The bottom line is, there are no conspiracies by fat old men to keep women out of politics. If women are underrepresented in parliament, the cause goes much deeper than any of these simple-answer seekers are willing to delve.

“If women are underrepresented in parliament, the cause goes much deeper than any of these simple-answer seekers are willing to delve.”

How do you know that?

I think these are some great questions, but if they’re really going to equate being involved in politics with running for office, then I think I’d give it a pass. I’d be too busy rolling my eyes to pay much attention. The last campaign I worked on had women in the top three staff positions, and more than half the strategy team was women. And aside from electoral reform, most of the issues-based politicking I’ve done has had more women involved than men, too.

Before looking at these questions, might it not be useful to consider:

1) Will increasing the number of female Parliamentarians change the nature of the government?

2) If we expect a change, will it improve or degrade the system we have now?

I think I can guess at the implied responses to those two questions among the people orgainising this event, and to a lesser extent, among those attending. I would be very interested to hear their justifications, and any research they have done to support their conclusions.

If my wife is any indication, women are quite turned off of politics. The thought of political conversation sends my wife scurrying to her scrapbooking corner. I don’t mean that in a derogatory way; she just has no interest.

Dare I suggest that the traditional roles of men and women could play a factor here? Anecdotally, I have seen that many (but certainly not all) women prefer to leave politics to men, so they can get on with raising their families, rightfully seen as the more important role.

blah blah blah blah blaaahh.

Ok, I’m a woman. I’m even a smart woman. I’ve got a MSc in Computer Science. And you know what? I think all these battle-axes that are out busy fighting some stupid, non-existant war against the patriarchy can sit on it and rotate. I’m really getting sick of hearing about how we’re all oppressed and how we don’t get enough handed to us on a silver platter and so on.

There is no “man’s world.” There just a bunch of lazy-ass women who can’t figure out why they can’t hack it.

PS: ConvertMan, I love politics. You probably only know a certain type of woman. I know other types.

I think we define it incorrectly. They’re are plenty of women involved - be it with organizing hockey, soccer, etc., school boards, charities, municipal boards, etc.

Is their an involvement gap?

I get tired of the analysts trying to figure out why there aren’t more women in politics.This is a free country, lots of professions and careers. I have never met a woman who was told not to go into politics. Is it too simple to deduce that the reason there aren’t more women in politics is that they don’t want to? I think that is what ruth was saying…???VF

I have little sympathy for feminists’ constant whining that they are not represented sufficiently. They have millions of dollars in tax funding to equalize the playing field - they should use some of it to develop more female leaders.

NEVERTHELESS, I’m surprisingly sympathetic to the idea that we should have something approximating 50% of our decision-making institutions composed of women. I think it’s similar to the argument that drug tests should include women because of physiological differences. In this case, if policies are going to be “tested” on live people (i.e. if legislation is going to be passed that will affect women and men alike), and if there is a reasonable way to achieve that, we should do it.

And there is such a reasonable way. It was briefly considered by the people of Nunavut, but then rejected in a referendum. It should be resurrected, this time on a national level.

The idea is simple. Cut in half the number of constituencies, and have a nomination for a male and a female in each.

Voila. Instant 50% representation. And the option of going to a female MP or a male MP, depending on which one you think will do the best job for you. Bonus.

And for those who would say that the 2 MP gender balanced constituency would mean unqualified people would end up in Parliament, I ask you - and this is different, how?

What about transgendered or non-gendered? Where do they fit in? That argument would be like the furor starting to develop over the variety of public washrooms required.