The 300 Group- women in politics- still a hidden struggle?(124 Posts)
The 300 Group- an all party campaign for women in parliament, politics and public life.
Do you think there is a place for a group like this nowadays? Should women in politics be on the agenda in electoral reform?
(Were you even aware it had folded? I wasn't... but I am hardly up-to-date on these matters)
Should we be supporting and promoting women's entry into politics? Is it necessary? Is it unfair?
Would greater numbers of female politicians lead to an increase in awareness of issues that affect women or improved legislation?
There isn't even a wiki page for the 300 group - which I find astonishing...
though I have found a few useful links on google:
Piece about the founding of the 300 group
Evidence given by Lesley Abdela to parliament on female representation- May 2009
Lesley Abdela in the Guardian last year
Re comments from Policywonk.... yes, South Africa, like some 60 other countries operates a form of quota. Some countries that operate a gender quota also operate quotas for other groups (ethnic, religious etc). Most quotas are voluntary and at party level for the selection of candidates. Some entail seats set aside for women (India and Pakistan), and some countries have legislated for quotas (France has legislation for "Parity"). Worth noting that the Labour Party has used measures to promote the selection of female candidates in Scotland for the Scottish Parliament, and in Wales for the Welsh Assembly.
The Women's Budget projects that PolicyWonk refers to are quite common. South Africa, Uganda, Australia and the UK have them along with many other countries. The Women's Budget Group in the UK objected to this government's first budget in court on the grounds that it had not been tested to ensure that it did not have unfairly gendered outcomes. The finding was in favour of the WBG (supported by the Fawcett Society among others) and against the government. I expect details of this are on the Fawcett website. It is interesting to read just how biased the budgetary outcomes were against women.
Counting Women In: a charter for equality, was started in 2011 by, among others, the Centre for Women and Democracy, the Electoral Reform Society, the Fawcett Society, and the Hansard Society. This is very much like the 300 Group in both its aims and members, and just like the 300G was launched at Westminster with MPs from all major parties present.It has a website, and people can become members.
In answer to a question further down.... each party selects candidates differently. The Labour Party introduced All-Women shortlists in a limited number of constituencies prior to the 1997 election, and then a time-limited law that would permit parties to use measures to promote female candidacy until 2015.
Opposition to such measures assumes that present practices are fair and democratic. They simply are not.Apart from general processes that tend to exclude people who are not white, professional, male, able bodied and young-ish, overt discimination takes place, although not very publically as selection committees are not very public affairs. The Fawcett Society sponsored stunning research by Joni Lovenduski and others around the 2002 election, which can probably still be accessed through their website.
Is it really necessary to have half of our elected representatives being female?
10% of the population are convicted criminals, but I wouldn't advocate 10% of MPs or councillors being criminals <<thinks>>.... there's probably a really droll comment in there somewhere...
Iran looks lively at the moment. Promise you won't book for Teheran.
cant hang about im googling plane tickets to oppresive-regimes-R-US
Well you can call it new fangled linguistic nuance if you want, although I think you might find your tongue in knots after saying it.
I'd call it old-fashioned common or garden misogyny however. "Skirt" is a nasty term for women, probably one you'll find bandied around in most of our political parties though.
no chance of agreement on tactics here
but i do agree politics is a bear pit
yes new fangled linguistic nuances! i hear some skirts women even use jokey parlance without expecting to get head jumped upon
I don't think we're going to agree SM
I disagree that the fact of women's sex doesn't make a difference. I don't think issues such as trafficking and DV would have been addressed as determinedly by a male Home Secretary, for example. And my post below about the global situation gave a few examples of how women's gender can make a difference, including the study that indicated that they are more effective parliamentarians (possibly because of women's greater capacity - whether by nature or nurture - for forming alliances and working in teams, and their willingess to cross party lines).
Secondly, I don't agree that society by itself will right this wrong - at least, not within an acceptable timeframe.
Like I said it was taking your argument to its logical conclusion. If you don't like your sexism being compared to that of regimes in the Middle East perhaps you should try not to have views that resemble theirs.
Also if you don't approve of put downs then why are you saying stuff like this?:
"just doesnt make you look like a smart bear"
The point is that there are a whole lot of men in politics who you could safely say about "He only got the job because he's a man/old Etonian" but people don't because sexism rules the day and we aren't supposed to notice all the "positive" discrimination at work in favour of men. It's just the way things are.
dittany,the put down was you liken my views to those of oppressive regimes and suggest i go live there.
if that is your chosen style of debate- fair enough
just doesnt make you look like a smart bear
Jesus H. Christ, political parties parachute men in to parliamentary seats all the time but it doesn't stop men being taken seriously enough.
If people don't take women seriously that's because they are misogynists. You don't let misogynists set the agenda. That's a terrible argument against requiring political parties to ensure that their candidates reflect the electorate.
Nice one calling women skirts though. Still working on that feminism then SM. (Now that one was a put down).
parachuting in a few token women doesnt redress longstanding issues it probably exacerbates problem of women not being taken seriously enough
and legitmises the "oh she only got the job because she is a woman" argument.because they'd beparachuting in on gender
anyway you potentially take a bunch of middle class educated suits and replace them with middle class educated skirts.doesnt necesarily mean they will be any better
yes there is a long way to go but on professional courses like medicine and law over 50% of undergraduates are female
women obtain better degrees than men
a new 2009 study by the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) asserts
not only do women outnumber men overall at university, they also outnumber them at every type of university. They are also more likely to get a good degree pass (a 2:1 or a first) and are less likely to drop out.
Anyway, you carefully avoided my question whilst fibbing that I was putting you down. I'll repeat:
"Do you think men would stand for it if 80% or whatever it is of parliament were women and every prime minister we've had bar one were women?"
That wasn't a put down SM, that was following your argument to its logical conclusion.
Every argument you have put here has been in favour of maintaining the status quo and thus continuing the sexist discrimination against women that disfigures our political landscape.
I think men in this country probably do feel reasonably well-represented by our overwhelmingly male parliament. Certainly better represented than the women in this country feel.
What about my argument below re. sex discrimination legislation? Politics is one of the few careers in which discrimination legislation doesn't apply. Women are protected from the worst excesses of sexism in most other careers; why not in politics too?
I'm not prepared to wait around for society to do its dreary business. We've had equal pay legislation for something like 30 years; women still don't get paid as much as men for the same work. It would be nice if society could be trusted to sort this stuff out by itself, but the truth is that it doesn't. At the current rate of change, we'd achieve gender parity in Westminster after about two centuries. Why should the next 10 generations of women continue to be discriminated against?
yes,of course i do.structurally and culturally politics is a bear pit but positive discrimination isnt way to go
They should be electable on their own merits, SM, yes. But all the evidence is that they are not.
Put it this way: do you accept that women are discriminated against in their attempts to enter Parliament?
dittany to try make a cogent arguemnt without resorting to putdown
ok so lets get down to it - which women?
most likely middle class educated will present
how is that any more representative to a working class woman in council scheme
Do most people in this country actually feel well represented by a white middle class man? I suspect not.
nor will they feel better represented by white middle class women.who are most likely to have desire to stand
or else what?quotas of women based upon
More women equals more democratic representation for women. Women's issues and women's rights are much further up the agenda in countries where there are higher numbers of women in politics. Nobody said women would necessarily be better politicians than men. That's a straw man.
Do you think men would stand for it if 80% or whatever it is of parliament were women and every prime minister we've had bar were women? It's grossly unfair and against natural justice.
If you prefer being ruled by men though SM, maybe you should trot along to Saudi Arabia or Iran. They don't hold with any silly notions of political representation for women there.
More women = equal, not better.
Why should we be run by a government where men are the majority? Do most people in this country actually feel well represented by a white middle class man? I suspect not.
I don't think that there should just be more women in the house, I think there should be more ethnic minorities, people from different backgrounds etc.
A diverse government with lots of different experiences and passions is my ideal but electing people on own merits isn't even making this a possibility, let alone a reality.
but the implication is more women= better or else why bother manipulating selection
should be electable on own merits not by favouritism
I don't think anyone is necessarily assuming they will be better, just assuming they are as good and capable as men and therefore should be equally as electable. At the moment that isn't the case.
I'm not a huge fan of positive discrimination in principle but I am not sure what other solution there is, so I would probably in this situation be in favour of it or quotas.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.