Where are all the women in the cabinet?

[fruitstick]

I'll try again with a completed thread title this time!

Given that this was supposed to be the Mumsnet election, is there any hope that there might be one, just one woman in the cabinet?

Although Samantha Cameron looked lovely in her maternity wear and heels, I was hoping for slightly more representation than that.

Despite Labour's faults, at least they had women in important and influential positions, not just window dressing.

I think that's unfair to say Hilary Clinton is only where she is because of her husband.

What if she'd not married, or married a guy with a normal job who was happy to support her from the background? Do you not think she'd have still risen as high in politics? Her ambition and political intelligence are all her own - she didn't have them implanted into her by Bill when they made their wedding vows.

NB, another one in favour of positive discrimination and women-only shortlists. I, and my daughter, don't have time to wait another century for the organic approach to equality in government.

ali I agree. women are judged more harshly.

To add some gender balance, let me state for the record that I think Chris Huhne and Francis Maude are pretty humdrum too.

Having said that, I am very pleased at the improvement in the quality of the new Cabinet over the old.

what equality do you seek doggie?equality to select and appoint a quota of females?do clarify what do you mean by equality how would it manifest

LarkinSky it's impossible to say. Maybe she would have, maybe not. What cannot be doubted is that her being 'Mrs Bill' gave her a huge leg up.

I'm honestly not being awkward, but perhaps Bill being Mr Rodham gave him a massive leg up? Perhaps if he'd married another woman, who didn't appreciate the lack of work/family balance, he might have quit politics for something less demanding?

I think it's quite dodgy to say that type of thing about women, that they're only in their position because of their marriage. Nobody EVER says it about a man.

i support equality of oppurtunity.not tokenistic gender politics.best person for job regardless of gender

longfingernails - couldn't agree more. I think there are some very talented people in there. Particularly pleased that Hague has been given such a prominent role.

Very interesting that the only Lords appointed are as Party Chairman and Leader of the Lords. Seems like a very conscious move away from the Labour set up of Mandleson and Adonis holding the Business and Transport briefs.

Larkin - I'm sure he wouldn't have got where he did without her, much like the fact that it is unlikely that Obama would be in the White House without Michelle.

I would say the same about any couple where one had a political career and then the other, regardless of which way around that happened. I am struggling to think of any examples.

The problem with blather about 'equality of opportunity' is that it's basically same old same old. If we carry on as we are, it'll take something like 400 years before we have equal representation of women in parliament.

Even if you are not particularly bothered about equality, surely you'd have to concede that it's rather strange that 95% of the people who run the country just happen to be male?

anecdotal blather about come on the women is tokenistic and seeks to parachute candidates in based solely on gender

i have no particular thoughts about gender of politicians.bemused anyone would think increased female representation as somehow better/fairer

i vote by ideology,intellect,class,economics dont care about gender of politicians

i care about ability and delivery

would never vote for woman based solely on gender or misplaced sense or redressing a perceived wrong

I support the principle of "the best person should get the job" but it is unthinkable that so many of the best people are men.

Not sure that shortlists are the answer though.

I think the new Parliamentary creche will help (though I wish they hadn't spent so much money on it). They should also change the working hours. Starting the working day at 9 might be a first step!

The problem is much earlier than the selection process - it is in the application process. That is where the efforts should be concentrated - getting more good women who have already had successful careers to apply to become MPs.

Why is the proportion of female applicants to be Parliamentary Candidates, in all parties, so low?

why is it assumed more women in politics is necessarily good/better thing?why is it inferred majority man is necessarily bad.or that as a woman i should actually care

i dont care about gender of candidates

Erm, actually, it's DISGUSTING that there are so few women in the cabinet.

In response to some netmums' comments that say that positions should be given to people based on experience and ability, my question is... WHY it is being assumed that the reason more jobs were given to men is because they must have been more able/experienced etc - how does anyone know this?

And if the male polititions do have better credentials, then WHY did they get more opportunity than the women to obtain better credentials???

Wake up!!

You see, the problem with lines like 'I don't care about gender' is that they create a gender imbalance. Not caring isn't neutral. Not caring gets us an overwhelmingly male leadership. Which does matter, of course it does! Do you really think having half the population excluded from power has no effect at all?

There are more than 60m people in this country, of varying degrees of intelligence and talent and common sense and foresight and all the other stuff that comes in handy in terms of running the place. If you strike slightly more than half of the off the list of possibilities for a political career, you are restricting the pool of potential talent. So you'll have fewer really good people to choose from. Hence you'll get some people promoted above their ability purely by virtue of being male - because the good women have already been ruled out, so inevitably less good men will be given jobs, who wouldn't have qualified in a fair fight.

That's not good for anyone, male or female. Surely we want the very best people making the decisions that ultimately affect whether your family has food and housing, your kids have a decent education or you can see a doctor when you are ill? Or whether our forces go off to war?

I doubt any of the people arguing that it doesn't matter if the country is entirely run by men would turn round and say Nelson Mandela wasted his life fighting for political representation of Black people in S Africa. If excluding people on grounds of race matters, so does excluding them on grounds of their genitalia.

you mean the kind of wake up to a desire to promote gender politics?and pursue a poor downtrodden and excluded women agenda.oh grow up.this thinking isnt liberating in fact it is patronising to suggest that us women stick together.awful

listen you need to wise up,gender in itself isnt defining quality and doesn't mean i need to have a desire to see more women just because

i vote on intellect,economics,class.personal foibles Not gender.

am aghast at suggestion because politician is female i should have affinity or desire to see them propelled

dont care gender of politicians
care about ability and execution of job

Theresa May is my local MP. I am not a Conservative but she is a very good MP. Campaigning on local issues, very hard working and being visible and trying to make a difference.

I think she is an interesting choice as Home Sec but I also think she is more than a match for the job and the responsiblity that goes with it.

As for her also being the women and equality minister I think that is laughable and sums up the Tory view of where women should be.

I vote on all sorts of issues about whether this person and party would be a good thing or not too - obviously. But we are less likely to get a decent government if we exclude half the population from it in the first place.

you'd think feminism would liberate from gender tribalism.assumption because im female im supposed to agitate for more female representation,assumption a woman speaks my language in way man cant

the myth of sisterhood is divisive and a daft platitude.hell keep the women occupied with womens politics,after all that's what they really care about?

gender tribalism misplaced assumption i agitate by gender.womens politics sidelines and stereotypes females,so as female voter a female is inferred preference .well no,not in my case.i dont care.care about capability

have no idea what "You'd think after forty years of feminism it wouldn't need saying but apparently not"...what is it that dare not speak its name?