babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Feminism in politics

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Feminism in politics
older and wiser
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1070

posted 14 March 2003 09:40 PM      Profile for older and wiser     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One of the planks in the Platform for Action adopted in Beijing at the UN Conference on Women in 1995 dealt with Women in Power and Decision-Making. Canada, along with other states, pledged to increase the number of women in government.
There has been an insignificant increase in the last eight years. The Older Women's Network is sponsoring a program on Friday, March 21 in which Hazel McCallion, mayor of Mississauga, and Marilyn Churley, MPP will discuss their lives as women in politics. Metro Hall, Room 314, 1:30 PM.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 15 March 2003 12:57 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think Canada is doing badly at all in terms of having women in cabinet snd stuff like that, why don't countries such as Saudi Arabia also pledge to increase the number of women in government?
From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
sistersanta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3038

posted 15 March 2003 02:02 AM      Profile for sistersanta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 17 March 2003 02:29 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Looking over your list a second quesiton comes to mind. Why do the majority of women who get elected tend to share the views of the ruling class which are so detrimental to poor women and is this better or worse than the status quo?

Putting down the Nigarguan President as elected is a mockery of democracy.

It seems self defeating putting energy into electing people on gender when their policies perpetuate the status quo. If we elected Christy Clark in BC as Premier and one of the Alliance female MP's as Prime Minister does anyone believe this would advance the cause of equality?


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
beibhnn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3178

posted 17 March 2003 03:19 PM      Profile for beibhnn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There was a good segment on CBC's The House this Saturday about the dearth of women in politics and possible explanations and solutions. You can listen to the radio program on RealPlayer if you have speakers - Jennifer Fry's piece is about 20 minutes in.

Canada ranks a sad No. 35 in terms of the percentage of women in Parliament. There's a long road to equality ahead folks...


From: in exile | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 17 March 2003 05:01 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I listened to the program and it was interesting but a little disengenious.

First there was a comment that only one woman ran for the NDP and she was given no real hope of winning. Hardly even a nod to the NDP for having had two consecutive women leaders. A second point the speaker noted was how it is virtually impossible for women to get into economic portfolios where the real power is. While this is certainly true I would have appreciated some mention of at least Joy McPhail in the Clark government and Janice McKinnon in the Romano government. To decry the lack of women and then not acknowledge the women who have been in those positions is curious.

Maybe it is only because this woman was seemingly from the right of the political spectrum that she would out of hand ignore progressive women who have been given real power and authority.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 17 March 2003 05:17 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
midge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3542

posted 17 March 2003 09:31 PM      Profile for midge     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, as long as the sterotoypical definitions of men and women dictate that men should be aggressive, adventurous, competitive etc. and that women should be passive, nurturing and submissive, there will continue to be more male politicians elected. Women in these roles are labeled as "not real women" because society views outspoken, aggressive characteristics as naturally male attributes.
From: home of medicare | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 18 March 2003 08:36 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
What's it going to take to change things?
When are Canadians going to take women leaders seriously enough to elect them?

When the women who run for public offices are more honest, more creative, more responsive and more appealing than the men running for the same offices.
Any party can put up more candidates in power-suits with a skirt... but as long as those candidates are selling the same unworkable party line, they'll be worth exactly as much as the candidates in pants: i.e.: it doesn't mean anything.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Vee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3477

posted 18 March 2003 09:57 PM      Profile for Vee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It would be great to see more women in politics, but the problem is that women have to learn to play the game. Politics, in general, are designed for men and the way that they operate, i.e.old boys network, etc. Women have to change or adapt their way of thinking to be successful in that arena. I found that being a young woman in Rotary, a predominantly male organization, has been a great challenge by times because I have had to learn the guys rules while finding a place for me and my views in the organization. Do women have to become more "masculine" to succeed in politics? No. We need role models and mentors to lead the way and force politics to evolve into a more gender inclusive/friendly arena.
From: East Coast | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
weakling willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3260

posted 20 March 2003 08:16 PM      Profile for weakling willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Judy Rebick's column on Rabble last fall about Libby Davies is very a propos for this discussion.
From: Home of the Canadian Football Hall of Fame and Museum | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 21 March 2003 12:15 AM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
A second point the speaker noted was how it is virtually impossible for women to get into economic portfolios where the real power is. While this is certainly true I would have appreciated some mention of at least Joy McPhail in the Clark government and Janice McKinnon in the Romano government.

We should not forget that the Rae government had very impressive representation of women in major economic and social portfolios (Lankin, Grier, Boyd, Martel, Churley), and the BC NDP had not one but two female finance ministers (Elizabeth Cull and Joy MacPhail) as well as many other prominent female ministers like Penny Priddy, Joan Sawicki, Jenny Kwan, Anne Edwards and Jan Pullinger.


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
BarnOwl
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3091

posted 21 March 2003 03:16 AM      Profile for BarnOwl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 21 March 2003 03:20 AM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, what choice do they have? Let men run the show, and hope for benificence?

Also, I have to say that the thread title makes me chuckle too, because to me, writing "feminism in politics" is like writing "marxism in politics." Feminism is politics!

[ 21 March 2003: Message edited by: verbatim ]


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 March 2003 06:59 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for BarnOwl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 21 March 2003 05:41 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
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.

They aren't barred by some unwritten code, or invisible fence - they just get minimal support from voters. There's a difference, doncha think?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 21 March 2003 06:46 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, in politics especially, candidates for all the corporate sponsored parties face an invisible fence. The fence is getting the financial support to campaign and get the nominations. As well, in the Liberal party for instance, even if you are lucky enough to get a seat in the house you still need to jump that further hoop to get into cabinet.

Which is why I mentioned two of the left women I have met who suceeded against the odds.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Puetski Murder
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3790

posted 31 March 2003 08:26 PM      Profile for Puetski Murder     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is really bad and even I offend the feminist in myself.

But, I wonder: why are there no good looking women in politics?

Trudeau was a hottie. Why can't there be a female Trudeau?


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 31 March 2003 09:04 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is really bad and even I offend the feminist in myself.
But, I wonder: why are there no good looking women in politics?

Trudeau was a hottie. Why can't there be a female Trudeau?


There are lots of very attractive women in politics. Part of the problem is that politics is usually for the 40+ crowd, and the media ideal of female beauty is of an age younger than this.


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Puetski Murder
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3790

posted 31 March 2003 09:27 PM      Profile for Puetski Murder     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
AdvoCat
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3942

posted 01 April 2003 09:35 PM      Profile for AdvoCat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ahh...sweetie.., I hate to throw stones, but Who Cares?!! My priorities have moved beyond 'fixing' myself in heels and lipstick... The economic and social barriers that need to be defeated are the engrained delusions we still submit to as Barbiedoll buyers! The responsibility of a political role model lies in her character, not in her clothing. At this point, I would support a movement towards appointed seats for minority groups, including women. I don't see it as a crutch, but rather an opportunity to uphold disadvantaged groups and better represent the true population. The institutions we share that have been largely shaped and dominated by men need to change but they won't if we continue to thrash women into unrealistic expectations of being perfect or like men. I'm interested in your opinions about appointed seats.
From: Somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 01 April 2003 09:40 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wendy Lill is a KNOCKOUT.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Natalie Anne Lanoville
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 626

posted 01 April 2003 09:59 PM      Profile for Natalie Anne Lanoville     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
AdvoCat
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3942

posted 01 April 2003 11:32 PM      Profile for AdvoCat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Touché. I can appreciate that to an extent-Good looks may keep the polls looking good. I've classified women as a minority in the political realm, according to the initial post and current numbers. What's your argument against appointed seats? A common argument is that women, because of their gender alone will not bring qualitative changes to society and may merely develop into an elitist group among women. Possibly I’m all too eager to damn the man.
From: Somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Puetski Murder
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3790

posted 02 April 2003 04:49 PM      Profile for Puetski Murder     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca