Moments of Permanence - A curious parallel

From: alias_sqbr Date: March 19th, 2009 05:23 am (UTC) (Link)

Oh I don't mean their votes should count double or anything, just that if a party was developing a policy about maternity leave, say, they'd make sure to get a lot of women involved in writing it. Same way that if they're developing science policy they should talk to scientists and not just rely on the fact that some politicians happen to have science degrees.

But this:
I guess I'm saying that if women believe that their gender-related issues need to be represented by female parliamentarians, then they should probably elect some.

really misses the point of why women (or any other under-represented group) are proportionally under-represented in the corridors of power.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: grahame.livejournal.com Date: March 19th, 2009 05:30 am (UTC) (Link)

How so? It's not like women are < 1% of the population unable to get meaningful representation due to our system of elections.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: angrylemur.livejournal.com Date: March 19th, 2009 07:32 am (UTC) (Link)

uhm, male politicians in the runnings for these positions vastly outnumber their female counterparts - just for starters. There are social reasons behind that - women have it harder getting into politics then men due to social barriers and just outright sexism, go figure! But also, when women DO manage to get into those positions, they tend to do so by largely selling out the people they claim to represent and supporting policies that make the people around them (largely wealthy white men) more comfortable (see also: Sarah Palin). This means that if women (or any marginalized group, for that matter) want to elect someone who truly represents us, we are doubly screwed - our choices are so limited as to not be choices at all.

IN CONCLUSION: Blame the victim much?

(Reply) (Parent)