all female debate is a step backwards from equality

[ljwales]

LBC are going on about this historic debate. Wtf how is their sex even relevant?

Sorry can't paste on my android LBC To Host All-Female Election Debate

1
Sunday 5th April 2015

Four of the most senior female politicians in the country will do battle in a 90-minute debate on LBC this Thursday 9th April.

Nicky Morgan of the Conservative Party, Labour's Harriet Harman, Ukip's Suzanne Evans and Lynne Featherstone of the Liberal Democrats will take part in the debate.

LBC's award-winning presenter Iain Dale will host the event.

It's the first all-female broadcast debate of the election campaign and will see each politician address the key issues as well as facing tough questions from LBC listeners.

The groundbreaking event will take place at 7pm in LBC's brand new high definition studios and will last for 90 minutes.

I agree with you completely, ljwales

It's not all-female if the presenter is male, is it?! If they're going to do an "all-female" show they should at least make sure it actually is.

The main parties are having trouble engaging female voters apparently, women they have surveyed say they don't feel the things they care about are addressed. This might be to try and engage women, rather than being about "equality".

YANBU especially since 3 of the 7 debaters and the chair on Thursday were female!

Maybe they should have more female politicians in general if they want to engage with female voters?

What they're doing is just silly.

It's tricky isn't it. While things that women care about are seen by them as being treated as minority or specialist points, it doesn't hold that female politicians will be any good on them. But if lots of women feel that their concerns are not being addressed by mainstream political discourse, which is dominated by men, maybe they think it's worth a try.

Of course things that are concerns for women shouldn't be "minority" issues they should be issues for the whole of society but that's not the way it usually goes at the moment.

Do people get annoyed when they see all male panels?

It's such lazy logic. Women are capable of listening to men (we have to be, given the male dominance of the media and politics); female lack of engagement with the main parties is nothing to do with whether the people talking share our gender. If anything, wheeling out one of the women just highlights how few women there are in politics.

Agee sweet but not sure what the answer is.

I wonder if they will focus on "women's issues" or if it will be a more general debate.

Ideally I would like more even representation and things that affect women, and that they care about, higher up the political agenda ( or even on the page). In the absence of that, this is the sort of thing we get. Is it better than nothing, or does it marginalise women's concerns further?

I disagree, in 2010 when we had Clegg, Brown and Cameron battle it out for our votes, nobody said that men were less equal because of a male only panel. I think as women we are almost embarrassed to see women in these positions because it is so against the norm. Women don't vote in the same proportions, they don't stand in the same numbers and they certainly don't get selected or elected in anywhere near the same way.

We have to start seeing women in these positions far more for the general population to be used to the idea that politics is for everyone.

YABU.

YABU. It's a good case of role-modeling and aspiration for women. To have an all-woman panel lets other women see that it is possible to have a political profile. It's similar to any group.

agree it's a bit to have a male chair.

reverse discrimination is as bad as the other kind.

what is this, a special all-female panel because women can't cope with men around? I didn't watch the leaders debate but I haven't heard that was the case.

Really? Positive discrimination is as bad as prejudice and sexism?

It's nothing to do with 'can't cope with men around' either. I'd think it's a measure designed to make the political process more open to women.

So what we want is all male panels, some mixed panels, but no all female panels as because there are less women in politics it doesn't happen so naturally.

Plus points like, as a poster upthread mentioned, we already had a panel that was 3/7 female the other day, so having one with all women now seems excessive.

LovelyBranches You say that women don't get selected or elected in the same way as men.

Selected? Still true at Parliamentary level; not, I think at council level.

Elected? Is there any real evidence to show that parties do less well if they select a woman? I know that there is (or was fifteen years ago) some evidence that council candidates with an "ethnic name" performed less well than candidates from the same party with a "white name" - Straw trotted it out as a reason for having a party list system in the European Parliament. But I doubt you would see any trend in that direction in respect of gender.

Andrew, There is strong evidence that women don't get selected as easily, hence why Labour brought in all women shortlists, and Plaid Cymru brought in zipping. There is also strong evidence that this selection process is even tougher for women if the seat is deemed winnable. Furthermore there is anecdotal evidence that many women find the selection process tougher than a male counterpart for a variety of reasons not least because local activists are often 'male, pale and stale' (not my words) and find selecting outside of their own image difficult. Women often have more pressures on their time so have less time for door to door knocking and general palm pressing.

I live in Wales and the Assembly were the first legislative body in the world to have equal representation. It's no longer the case and the difference can be seen clearly. We need women and debates that focus on women shouldn't be shunned.

Let us not forget that there are some political parties that have NEVER elected a woman to parliament.

Excuse my lack of paragraphs, i'm writing on my phone.

If it was Clegg dave ed and Farage - I doubt we'd have either recognised it or branded it as an all male panel. We'd be focusg on the politics and ideology of it, and the sad fact that there are hardly any women around.

But when it's four ladies, instead of the four above, immediately it gets marketed as an all woman panel. Why? If the above was not marketed as an all male panel but just an election debate, why is this being marketed as an all woman panel? Why are we reacting to it as an all woman panel?

I agree. I want to hear from the best person or have the best person doing the job. I don't want part of the criteria that they were chosen on being that they have a fanny.

Women get treated as a minority!

Pipbin, do you ever question whether male politicians are the best person for their job, or do you just accept in and reserve any questions of competence to women?

I question if everyone is the best person for the job regardless of the contest of their underwear.

But when it's four ladies, instead of the four above, immediately it gets marketed as an all woman panel. Why?

Because the people who have been chosen to go on this panel have been chosen specifically because they are women. Probably just as a marketing excercise for LBC.

Pipbin, by all means feel free to link to a previous thread in which you have questioned whether any of the male leaders are 'the best person for the job', because I commonly see this comment aimed at women, very rarely at male leaders.