vote for women

[garlicbutter]

I've been reconsidering my attitudes to various powerful women lately. While I'm an out-and-out political Thatcher hater, I've now decided she deserves credits for being the first woman PM and for doing it along with having children and a marriage. Whilst I could write a dissertation on how she did it badly, the point I had to reconsider is that she did it and was a woman.

In my revised mindset, I feel the gender of the woman is equally important as her politics. If we apply the usual criteria to our selection of leaders (ie, are gender neutral), we're assuming the playing field is level. And it isn't.

It's taken me 56 years to reach this conclusion and, as I say, it's a fresh departure for me - incidentally, I'll also be voting for over-50s - so I'm very much up for discussion, if it'll help me hone my thinking!

~ Lifted from this thread, which is worth a good read in full :)

So I'll be voting for women on May 5th.

I decided I'd vote by gender unless there were no female representatives for parties I can tolerate - for me, that gave prorities of:

1. Not extremely right-wing
2. Female
3. Moderately left

So the Greens and Labour are getting my vote; I've never voted Green before, so their prepronderance of female candidates got them a new vote!

Clearly this wouldn't work for anyone whose party politics override their gender politics. If AV comes in there will be more opportunities to evaluate one's priorities, but even now it could be well worth reconsidering them :)

Huh. I just filled in my ballot form and had to choose from one conservative man, one "independent" man (funded by conservative party) and one labour man.

I think the idea of voting for someone because of their gender is ridiculous. It assumes that any woman candidate is better than a man - which just isn't true. It assumes that a woman MP/MSP will do more for equality than a male - which just isn't true. I'll vote for a politician who most closely represents my beliefs, and whether they are a man or a woman doesn't come into it.

I tried this for the last local elections.

My top tip: Do not get to the ballot box, look at the ballot paper and find yourself stumped by the ethnic minority candidates, whose names do not make their sex clear. If you do find yourself in this position, makes good sense to revise policy to include women and ethnic minority candidates in voting selection criteria.

"I think the idea of voting for someone because of their gender is ridiculous. It assumes that any woman candidate is better than a man - which just isn't true."

No it doesn't, it assumes that it is more difficult for a women to win even if she is equally qualified and able, which is true.

Tbh, I would only do this for a local election where there is less information available on each candidate. For a general election, I think it's much easier to do some research to find out what the individuals believe and how they would act should they win.

It's an interesting thought. I couldn't do it in the general election, though, as it would've meant voting for Anne "Why should I apologise for claiming expenses for a flat I didn't live in but my grown-up daughter did?" Main.

Personally, I will happily vote for a feminist/pro-feminist (while paying attention to gb's other criteria.

Some women may actually be anti-feminist, so it's worth researching your candidates, reading their manifestos etc. before going into the voting booth.

But if all else equal in that respect, I'm more inclined to vote for a woman.

Having seen your arguments on this garlicbutter I think I too will be adopting your policy. We don't seem to be getting anywhere in terms of female representation in parliament by going for more traditional methods of voting so I think it is worth a punt. And by that same logic I will also be voting Yes for AV.

Me, too, HandDived. I was feeling a bit about AV but, basically, any change is probably constructive at this point. Plus, it makes it much easeir to vote by mixed criteria.

Like your top tip, Karma!

Just been thinking about why I now disagree with IC - though I would have agreed a few weeks ago! Look at Obama (ooh, yes ). Many white Americans have stood for black rights. Obama hasn't made much of a deal about it. Yet who's done more for contemporary black Americans? Who's provided the living example that a black kid can make it all the way? He's improved black people's self-perceptions all over the place ... by being black, and being President.

I'd rather have a government full of women than men arguing our case for us.

Our predecessors wisely fought for our right to vote. Should we now use it to give more voice to me?

- er, not me, I'm not standing for election! To men

In our ward all the candidates for council are women.

Whoo-hoo, Georgiemama! Your ward cancels out bigbadbarry's then

I take your point entirely, gb - but what I was saying was that I wouldn't want to vote in someone who was anti-feminist (which Margaret Thatcher was IMO) and likely to propose and/or support policies that would actually disadvantage woman - no matter what type of genitalia they possessed.

I would, however, look at the individual rather than the party. So while I've never been of a Tory-voting persuasion, for example, I would seriously consider giving my vote to a female Tory candidate if she was:

a) the only woman on the ballot paper and
b) not personally espousing anti-feminist policies.

Even though the party as a whole is not exactly renowned for policies that support women

So yes, all other things being equal, I would be prepared to give my vote to a female candidate, irrespective of party politics.

In fact, I've already voted by post and as I recall, the ballot paper didn't feature any female candidates, so I picked the party I detest least instead (and in my view is at least a teeny bit more likely to be pro-feminist than the others).

It's always going to be a value judgement, and sometimes the options simply won't be available - as you've just illustrated, IC. However, I would love to see all parties forced to field at least 50% women candidates! Since that isn't going to happen anytime soon by ordinary means, the most powerful persuader is the voter's ballot slip.

We've been voting as if gender didn't matter for a century. Most of our elected representatives are men. So, gender-neutral voting isn't working for women, is it?

Thatcher was a weird one. She was brought up to be the son her father wished for. That probably gave her the 'masculine' edge needed to break the mould as far as our leader's gender is concerned. Now that mould is broken, so it'd be good to support as many women as possible in heading for the top - the next one won't need to be as rigid to get there. Though it chokes me to say so, it's thanks to Maggie. After all that, it'd be a shame to piss away the advantage!!

I agree about gender-neutral voting not working for women. And about 50% women candidates.

It's shaming that new democracies like Rwanda and Tunisia can manage this, yet the UK still can't handle the idea of encouraging half the population to have a voice.

Blimey, IC! Yeah, that's how I felt when I thought it through

Argentina & Brazil, those vast bastions of machismo, have got women presidents as well. Makes us look positively stone-age, doesn't it?!

Well, I've failed to prompt electoral reform :(

I did manage to put more women around the council table - not too hard, since 70% of the candidates were women - but sadly couldn't shift the conservatives.

A resounding gin-and-Galaxy moment chez Garlic.
Next stop: 2015. Must try harder!

You win some, you lose some gb....

Voting/campaigning for women-friendly policies is hugely more important than a woman candidate (Tracey Crouch supports nadine Dorries crazed just say no legis)

Support garlic re gender neutral candidates, but they need the politics too

What do we think to starting up a feminist political party? Has it been done/tried before?

It seems there is an undercurrent now (or maybe just the way I am seeing things) that we are ready for some significant changes.

It's a great idea! You'd have massive schisms, though - "women shouldn't live with men" vs "life should be better for women with men" and anti-porn vs sex trade management ... not to mention lack of solidarity over dress styles.

It'd be so easy to divide & conquer! I do wish there were a 1970s-style Feminist Movement, though. That, too, was very infighty but there was a far more powerful sense of direction, as I recall (even though I fell foul of the infighting most times). I remember despairing over a thread on this board, where regulars tried to begin a manifesto. It was hopelessly woolly. You'll never pull together a groundswell of support if you can't even state what you want ...

... and once you've got that, of course, you're ready to form a party.

Bellecurve - it's been done by the more right wing element of the suffragettes Christabel Pankhurst Women's Party; supported WW1 & stopped suffrage campaign to support war effort. Hmmm...Sylvia Pankhurst & East London Federation of Suffragettes set up Women's (later Workers) Dreadnought paper and was a leading communist/socialist. Opposed WW1. Could be argued that once you focus on improving situation of all women you automatically challenge power structures that treat working class men like shit too. Sadly, most socialists have settled for improving life for w/c men. Which doesn't give quite the same result, does it. Not that I'm cynical, mind.