Author
|
Topic: Feminism in politics
|
|
|
sistersanta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3038
|
posted 15 March 2003 02:02 AM
Saudi Arabia definitely has a lot to learn about democracy and women's rights in general.But Canada could also learn a lot from other countries, especially with regards to electing female as heads of states. (Gir, do you really think we should wait until Saudi Arabia changes its ways before Canada improves?) Interestingly the West claims a good record with regards to women's rights. But there are many more countries in the South electing women as heads of state than in western democracies. A little research shows the following facts (please correct any mistakes or omissions)... West: Thatcher Vigdis Finnbogadottir, President of Iceland (1980-1996) Golda Meïr, Israel Gro Harlem Brundtland, Norway South: Sirimavo Bandaraneike, elected Prime Minister of Sri Lanka (1960-1965) Corazon Aquino, President of the Philippines (1986-1992) Megawati Sukarnoputri, current President of Indonesia Violeta Barrios Torres de Chamoro (Nicaragua, 1990-1997) Indira Gandhi Benazir Butto Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, current President of the Phillipines (I'm only counting elected females leaders, there are plenty more appointed ones). Yeah sure we had Kim Campbell as PM, but she was never elected PM in her own right. Even at the provincial level, out of the over 100 or so provincial premiers in the last 100 years, we've only elected 2 women premiers (Catherine Callbeck, PEI and Pat Duncan, Yukon). What's it going to take to change things? When are Canadians going to take women leaders seriously enough to elect them? [ 15 March 2003: Message edited by: sistersanta ]
From: Montreal | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 17 March 2003 05:17 PM
When a woman such as Margaret Thatcher or Indira Gandhi come to power, there's typically a lot of grousing that they aren't "real" women (apparently "real" women all behave a certain way, quite differently from poseurs like Thatcher or Gandhi).As long as any woman in power is going to be defined as "not a woman" for using that power, it seems that yes, women will be locked out of power for a long time to come. (funny note: when people deny that Indira Gandhi was a "real" woman, are they implying that Mahatma Gandhi was one? Was he a "real" man?)
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BarnOwl
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3091
|
posted 21 March 2003 03:16 AM
When I read the thread title "Feminism in politics", I did a little chuckle. I read the posts, and sure enough - there it is again ... the notion of taking men's institutions, just add women, and everything will be fine and equal. It won't be.This is the same as talking about women in the military ... and why don't they get any respect? The same as women in the clergy ... why don't they get any respect? Easy. Because these organizations are a brotherhood endeavor, were not created with women in mind, and are overtly hostile to great numbers of women trying to jump in. And why they would want to is anybody's guess. mj
From: Frozen Middle of Nowhere | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 21 March 2003 06:59 AM
quote: Because these organizations are a brotherhood endeavor, were not created with women in mind, and are overtly hostile to great numbers of women trying to jump in.And why they would want to is anybody's guess.
You're right. Even though it's the only power structure that's there, and it's the only way to have influence on the way the country is run, we should just bow out because it's made for men by men. or NOT.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BarnOwl
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3091
|
posted 21 March 2003 10:38 AM
quote: You're right. Even though it's the only power structure that's there, and it's the only way to have influence on the way the country is run, we should just bow out because it's made for men by men.or NOT.
Well, that might make sense if those hierarchical power structures were actually capable of producing even a shred of sanity, let alone peace and justice. I've not seen much evidence lately. In order to participate, women have to become like men, in effect, honorary men - like Margaret Thatcher and Madeline Albright, et al. There is little to be gained by simply aping men. Women aren't hierarchical by nature so it's difficult to work effectively within that mindset. It's a major roadblock, but I admire your determination.
From: Frozen Middle of Nowhere | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732
|
posted 21 March 2003 05:19 PM
The problem for both men and women who want to change the status quo and achieve a more equatible world is the system itself. Either men or women who seek to get into the current power structures are barred if they do not agree with the patriarchal view of the power structure. Progressive men have too also jump that same hoop which is unconditional acceptance of the status quo. Just because the hoop for women isn't as accessible doesn't change the fact that there is a precondition to entry into the power structures.To me it does not matter whether it as a man or a woman who jumps that particular hoop because it doesn't lead to equality only perpretrating the staus quo. Politics is one of the places where both men and women can run on belives that are egalitarian in nature. However I would say that for the benefit of a better society electing a Tommy Douglas is better than a Kim Campbell. But that is only if your view of feminism goes deeper than merely having equality of gender in positons of control over the peons below. Gender equality is by itself meaningless if it merely changes the gender of half of the oppressors.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Puetski Murder
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3790
|
posted 31 March 2003 09:27 PM
I wouldn't even say like Barbie good-looking. The only woman politician I could come up with who I saw as well put together in terms of lookin' good and politics was Alexa McDonough. I find Sheila Copps to be a disgrace. She always looks as if she didn't shower and closed her eyes while choosing a jacket and skirt/pants. Politics is in part about selling yourself. I hold similar standards for men, but they've got it easy: "Hello, Saville Row? I'd like to order 7 suits."
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Natalie Anne Lanoville
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 626
|
posted 01 April 2003 09:59 PM
Well, since you asked... I'm not in favour of appointed seats.I'm curious - by what criteria do you consider women to be a minority? And while I applaud your stance on style vs content, unfortunately most people (either consciously or unconsciously) pay close attention to the appearance of other people, and many studies have shown that our estimation of public figures is tied to how they 'turn out', and our bias is often invisible to us. So while there may be many of us who don't care how our favourite politicians look or how much care they take with their deportment, it isn't enough to elect a hoarde of frumpy, shabbily-dressed women (distasteful exaggeration intended). So however you or I or other people feel about the issue, if we want to see our favourite women politicians elected, IMO they're gonna have to be well-dressed and coiffed. At least for the near future. Work it, Sheila! Make lurve to the camera!! Natalie.
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Puetski Murder
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3790
|
posted 02 April 2003 04:49 PM
Wow! Wendy Lill *does* work the Gloria Steinham sex bomb style!If anyone - male or female wants to enter politics, they have to realize the image they present is just as important as the content they're presenting. Just as you wouldn't wear fire-engine red to a funeral, why would you go into the house of commons looking like Haggis McBaggis? If I can critisize Ernie Eves for looking like a too slick BMW salesman without impunity, I should be able to critisize Sheila Copps for generally looking like shite. Although - browsing some old photos, Sheila used to dress much better. I liked her hairstyle circa 1995. It looked good on Luba Goy when she did her send ups on Air Farce.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|