Equal Voice lists the percentage of female candidates that have been nominated for each party this time round as:

Party
Bloc Quebecois 31%
Conservatives 11%
Liberals 27%
NDP 37%

They also point out:

quote:

---

-- Once a leader, Canada, with just 65 women in Parliament – 21.1% of MPs -- now ranks 43rd in the world among democracies in terms of women’s representation in the national legislature, after Pakistan and Portugal.

-- Focus on the issue in other countries has delivered results: Wales recently became the first jurisdiction to elect 50% women, ahead of Sweden (45%) and other Nordic countries which have long been best at electing women. Recently Rwanda topped them, however, and became the nation with the most elected women at 48.8 per cent.

-- Canada has been slipping in terms of the number of women candidates running for Parliament – falling from a high of 476 women candidates in 1993 to just 373 in the last federal election.

---

So this is a question addressed to the women on the board (I'm not requesting that men stay out of this thread, just be aware of who it is that I'm asking
)

[ 13 December 2005: Message edited by: writer ]

I won't go on about my own limits insofar as those are peculiar to me, but I have watched a lot of successful male politicians and often wondered why they were succeeding where women hesitated even to step forward.

Try to imagine being a candidate, surviving, eg, all those riding all-party debates. Hostiles start throwing questions at you, demanding instant recall of facts and figures. My suspicion is that most candidates deal with that situation by faking it, but I also suspect that women have a much harder time bluffing and faking than most middle-class men would have.

The problem is the situation in the first place - it is impossible for anyone whose face is going to show that she doesn't know an answer if she doesn't - but I think that few women have been trained to act their way through such situations, whereas a lot of men seem able to do that, to fake it.

There are all the practical problems too. Becoming a good candidate means spending a long apprenticeship networking in your riding or, maybe, in the upper reaches of your party. There are more women doing that now than ever before, but I think it is still hard for women to break into the back rooms - less so in the NDP, of course, but playing back-room games still means playing the way the guys play, so a lot of women have taken a good look and backed off. I can't believe that the Liberal or CPC back rooms are humanly enlightened; good for the women who can survive them, but to do that I suspect you still have to be one of the guys, and most of us aren't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
FYI, one exists, though not in the feminism forum, nor with the question you've raised: Women Candidates 2006

---

The hours, the scrutiny, the time away from family -- the complete abnormality of it all would be among the top reasons for me. Thank goodness that there are those who are willing.

quote:

---

The hours, the scrutiny, the time away from family -- the complete abnormality of it all would be among the top reasons for me. Thank goodness that there are those who are willing.

---

It's probably pointless to ask this, but can we think of ways the whole thing could be made more "normal," humanized a bit? I mean, how realistic is that full-time public schedule? How necessary? Does any of us think that projecting that go-go-go image from 6 a.m. till midnight is actually accomplishing anything?

Rosario Marchese defends his weekends absolutely.

quote:

---

It's probably pointless to ask this, but can we think of ways the whole thing could be made more "normal," humanized a bit? I mean, how realistic is that full-time public schedule? How necessary? Does any of us think that projecting that go-go-go image from 6 a.m. till midnight is actually accomplishing anything?

---

quote:

---

The irony is that some newer-style male politicians - David Miller, eg - sometimes work at looking as though they are relaxed domesticated critters. He will ride the TTC home, at rush hour, partly in order to be seen riding the TTC home at rush hour - but that means he's going home at a "normal" time, no? Or does he sneak back to city hall afterwards?

---

But there are 2 issues here: one is the running for office in the first place, and the second is how hard the work is and how much does one work once you're elected.

From what I can tell, having helped out in various campaign offices over the years, the "getting elected" part is brutal, and yeah, does require 6am to midnight. This leaves out tons of women due to childcare obligations, shift work, etc. The candidate is out there in meetings all day, etc, then after 5pm she's knocking on doors, or helping out in the office.

But, once elected I think it depends on the person. Olivia Chow, David Miller and others are visible in the community, on weekends, and other times. Others like certain "lifetime incumbents" don't seem to have to do very much, and still get frikkin re-elected! This is what burns my butt. For example someone like Ianno, who does SFA for the local community. Oh, except be a Liberal backbenching toady, which ain't helping anyone!

P.S. Guess who I'm voting for! Hee.

edited to add P.P.S: No I wouldn't run for office. Too many skeletons and secrets in my closet! Plus I find politics so....political! Ha!

[ 14 December 2005: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tehanu:
[i]Would you consider running for political office, and if so, what would you expect to encounter, and if not, what are some of the reasons why not?

---

No, I wouldn't run for political office, because personally, I have other hopes and dreams, a different career path that I am more passionate about. Politics can bore the hell out of me; I am far more interested in achieving social and economic justice. Politics can be a good way to build a freer, fairer society, but I feel that change can be implemented more effectively through social justice and aid organizations like refugee houses, shelters for the homeless and abused, some unions, raising awareness through media, etc. These avenues for effecting change are more fulfilling to me, meeting people and their struggles face to face and being reminded that injustices occur in spite of the law. It seems to me that many politicians lose touch with the reality of peoples' sufferings because ... well... they have such an intensive public schedule. Meetings, interviews, special appearances, speeches, etc. They get too comfortable in their own lifestyles and standard of living, it's hard for them to imagine there are people who can't afford a bite to eat for days on end.

Politicians can be mocked (maybe even judged?) almost as much as celebrities for stupid, superficial things like baldness, voice (I think we had a thread on shrill once). Are women politicians picked on more than men? I don't know. Public image is so very important as a politician, and it's not something I am interested in dealing with.

Politicians lie. We all know this. Even the generally more honest ones are forced to lie sometimes, to cover up disasters. Unfair questions are thrown at them, and in the heat of the moment, only a lie can save them. One wrong move, and an entire career is thrown out the window. Me, I am no good at lying. I don't lie because if I did, 1. I would feel so guilty that I would confess sooner than later, and 2. I am such a terrible liar that people know when I'm lying anyway.

Having said that, I can't imagine, given the political climate and my political orientation, that I would win.

quote:

---

If women acted as a group to make politics less of a bloodsport, I think it would change overnight!

---

Well, while I admire the idealism expressed here and share some of it, how exactly do women get in without engaging in the "bloodsport" of politics? I agree with previous posters that political work needs to be made more humane and more sane. This is not easy since it's not women who designed the system and, in most respects, women are required to play a man's game to get ahead in it.

I don't support STV and won't get into that but it's an interesting point about getting the numbers of women up and thus, the interests of women are better represented. You've talked about some women who are really remarkable at what they've done but the reality is that the world is not a meritocracy and women, like men, "succeed" (however one chooses to define that word) because they have some benefits or access to supports that many others don't.

There are many of us who don't want to play a man's game in life (been there, done that) and/or don't have the necessary supports to serve in public life. (Ah, perhaps that's why women don't get into politics in great numbers -- many of us have done enough serving to last many lifetimes.)

[ 15 December 2005: Message edited by: Loretta ]

Vegetarian Mincemeat

Ingredients:
3 large Red Delicious apples, peeled, cored and diced
1/2 cup chopped figs
1/2 cup chopped dates
2 tablespoons sunflower seeds
1/4 cup chopped walnuts
1/4 cup vegan maple syrup
1 teaspoon ground cinnamon
1/4 teaspoon ground cloves
1/2 teaspoon ground nutmeg
1/2 teaspoon ground ginger
Directions:

In a heavy saucepan, simmer all ingredients over medium heat for 15 minutes, stirring occasionally. The mincemeat will keep, covered and refrigerated, for approximately 1 week. It can be heated and served plain or can be used as an ice cream topping, as a pie filling (this recipe will fill 1 pie), or as an unusual stuffing for acorn squash.

That looks great, Loretta. Thanks.

There is, of course, one fast if arbitrary way to raise female representation: quotas. While quotas are arbitrary and may lead to some localized problems, they also often work as a kind of jump-start towards equality.

The new Rwanda legislature, I understand, is composed 50 per cent of women representatives - remember Rwanda? I suspect that was done by mandate. And the new Welsh house is also about 50 per cent women - I'm not sure that that was mandated - it may have come about through free voting, in which case ... yay for the Welsh, eh?

Of course such rules are artificial and are not going to result in a women's caucus whose every member would be much of a feminist, or much of anything we might like. But the critical mass would have an effect, would give us in our legislatures something closer to the views of numbers of women in the broader community.

Such assured places for numbers of women could also have an effect on the brutal campaigns a number of people here have said they wouldn't want to face. An arbitrary system would have a slight but interesting de-personalizing effect, and in some ways, in a representative system, that could be a good thing.

quote:

---

Why not redesign it from a womans prespective, then? I dont see a problem with that, do you?

---

I think a lot of womyn are stopped from running for office due to double duty. The reality being that in order to run, you must work 17 hrs per day for at least 6 weeks. You are then placed in a position that requires those same hours.

Many womyn are mothers and mothers are still the primary caregivers. Womyn are still chastized for not being around enough (whether directly or indirectly through cultural norms). Running for office means completely rejecting societal values of parenting roles. While a great notion, not always very practical.

Not to mention, candidates are not always paid to run (i don't know if they ever are, I don't think so), which means that you must be able to volunteer full time for 6 weeks or so. If you have children and no other parent at home, you must pay someone to care for your children.

I went to an NDP provincial council once where this very topic was the main panel. My disappointment can never be expressed. They spent the entire time talking about how womyn needed to get organized and work harder.

The truth is that politics are run the way they are because men are not seen to be active parents, so they can, and now must, work very long hours. Because womyn are still the primary caregivers, you just can't be competitive/effective with children.

Men run a tight ship. Until they change the system to better suit the needs of parents/all parents, then womyn will be at a disadvantage. I personally tie this into the difference between equality of opportunity (the current format) and equality of access.

Anyone who has followed the wonkier discussions of the election (you brave souls) knows that every party has pretty much figured out which ridings are winnable, and most candidates in most other ridings are sacrificial lambs.

Now, to a lot of good people, people who are dedicated to political education, it is still worth running in that situation, and a lot of the women who run do it for that reason. Good for them, but that doesn't change representation in our legislatures.

Since the time that I ran, I have done quite a bit of reflecting as to whether I would do it again. I have to say that the following conditions would have to be in place:

1. Five to ten years have passed
2. I have completed my family
3. My kid(s) is/are in school and more independent
4. I had a full-time, permanent job (as I do now) with a bare minimum of three weeks' vacation accrued
5. I had won a nomination from a political party (anyone to guess which one wins a cookie) . I cannot stress how important this is. Running a campaign on the organizing strength of two people (including the candidate) is hard bloody work, even with great folks donating their time/work in-kind and volunteering.

Hi, a common element I've noticed in many of the well-written posts is that many feel that the political life is too nasty, in terms of needing to lie, to personally attack and such. I mean... I don't see this as a necessarily male thing. Are female politicians actually 'nicer?' I don't think the problem here is with respect to the political class, I blame the media and the voters. We're too easy in general to be swayed by negative attack ads, and we obssess over silly things. 50% of Americans were deeply concerned with Clinton's sex life. In Quebec, Duceppe's popularity once plunged for many years because he was seen wearing a stupid looking hat. And who cares about Harper's clothing at the stampede? I don't believe these failings are limited to male voters.

quote:

---

WONDER WOMEN
Why are so many of Toronto's smartest, most powerful, most indefatigable women not running in this or any other political campaign? It's not because they haven't been asked,
writes Linda Diebel

---

Maybe those women didn't go into politics, but some of them sure learned some very old-fashioned (IMHO) power games.

Even so, though, the issues that even the power women raise there are going to be issues for most women - the lookism, the agism, just the general sexism.

And Diebel does finally profile a few women who are doing important political work, not just raising their own career profiles. And those women seem even less interested in running for public office. Their views suggest a much more serious problem with electoral politics and the legislative life: it's just not serious enough for them. They feel they're already doing better work on the outside.

quote:

---

When I first took my seat in the Nova Scotia legislature in 1981 -- the only woman at that time [she was also the only NDP member] and only the third woman since Confederation to have been elected -- there was no women's washroom in Province House. I used to go across the street to a public building. Sometime during the '80s, that facility was finally added.
I wish I could say that the relatively new women's washroom is symbolic of the many changes that have come about for women in politics but sadly, that wouldn't be accurate.
In my early years, there were some flagrant sexist attitudes on the part of some of my male colleagues that have modified somewhat recently -- not because I've done anything differently but because society has changed. I'd like to think that a lot of those men's attitudes have changed because their partners or spouses have struggled with them to try and see the value in looking at the world in a different way.
On the other hand, I've always felt that as sexist as the political environment can be, it's still a privileged workplace compared to the working experience most women face.
I think from day one I protected myself from that sexist barrage by rationalizing that it didn't make sense to take it personally -- that any woman would have been on the receiving end of it. Secondly, as awful as it got sometimes, at least it was taking place in a public arena, under a microscope you might say, and in a way, that was protection that most women at their jobs are not afforded. Sexual harassment is so pervasive and so many women working outside their homes are placed under so many pressures -- working at jobs that are insecure and unprotected -- their situations are so much worse than anything I experience during my working day.
And when it comes to equal pay, it's one of the few jobs in the country where that is guaranteed: women legislators are paid equally to their male counterparts.

---

And one more short excerpt:

quote:

---

Even when it came to something as seemingly straightforward as attending the opening of the legislature, while there was incredible public pressure on "the wives" -- who I'm sure would much have preferred to be elsewhere -- my spouse was not expected to be there because he was, after all, an "important" lawyer with demands on his valuable time and everyone would understand if he didn't show up...

At home, I always felt that the boys were well supported by Peter: he attended Home and School, did soccer field duty. But I feel there's no question that he and I still struggled with the notion that this was something unusual; there was an attitude of "isn't it wonderful that he's *willing* to do these things" rather than a natural understanding that this is the kind of joint parenting that makes sense in our society.
I also resented from time to time how often teachers would communicate -- either directly to us or, worse still, to the children and through the children to us -- how disapproving they were of our situation. "It's nice that Peter McDonough was at Home and School but where was your mother? I guess she's off gallivanting." A very strong memory for me that one of the kids still talks about was when a teacher said to one of the boys, "Well, I see you didn't get your homework done again this weekend. No wonder. I read in the paper this morning that your mother was off to Ottawa again." ...

---

(Forgive my self-indulgence. This is longer than my usual posts.)

[ 15 December 2005: Message edited by: Sharon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fast_twitch_neurons:
Hi, a common element I've noticed in many of the well-written posts is that many feel that the political life is too nasty, in terms of needing to lie, to personally attack and such. I mean... I don't see this as a necessarily male thing. Are female politicians actually 'nicer?'

---

Hi fast_twitch! Nobody ever said being nasty is a male thing. Females politicians can be nasty too, and are. I do believe that all the women on this thread recognize that the desire to shy away from politics has far more to do with public scrutiny, conflict with being a primary caregiver/parent and other reasons than having a go at a career in a male dominated field.

Babbler # 11219

posted 15 December 2005 09:41 AM
quote:
Why not redesign it from a womans prespective, then? I dont see a problem with that, do you?

I remember seeing about a year ago a film about women in politics. It focussed on the 1997 federal Halifax & area races.

Mary Clancy was constantly provoked about her weight, while Alexa was dismissed as weak and wishy-washy.

Wendy Lill, running in Dartmouth at the time, describes choosing the photos for her campaign material. She said strategists insisted that her kids stand behind her, probably standing on milk crates or something, so that they looked older, and people wouldn't assume she was "abandoning her children."

Still, I'm not convinced those are the only factors at play.

I remember attending an ONDP provincial council during which a former cabinet minister who shall remain nameless argued that gender parity requirements for riding association executives were too burdensome for Northern ridings (like the North is made up of less than 50% women?). He said the riding had tried, and tried so many times to get parity, but it was just impossible.

Not even a year later during the federal election, that riding fielded a female candidate. Not just that, but a female candidate who significantly improved on the previous share of the vote, but is also running this election, and has a good chance of becoming the newest NDP MP from Northern Ontario.

The problem is the boys clubs running the executives don't even know any women that aren't their wives.

I think it's symptomatic of a deeper problem that men in general really don't value relationships with women the way they value relationships with men, so they don't actually form any more than they have to.

[ 16 December 2005: Message edited by: meades ]

1) Any particular reason why we need to know the age of every woman quoted in the article? Brian Mulroney is mentioned in the article, but we aren't told his age.

2) We see repeatedly the implication that -- regardless of gender -- affiliating oneself with a political party automatically undermines one's credibility for advancing a cause. Now, in the case of the Liberals and Conservatives, I can see that, but...

Regarding Sharon's interview excerpt...

1) It's not self-indulgent to post that at all. Those are some great illustrations of the barriers faced by women entering politics.

Scott, I've been trying to think where -- and if -- the interview with Alexa was ever published. I think I'm getting closer to the little file in my brain where that memory is stored.

I think it was done for a book that someone was putting together about women in politics. And I think something happened between the person doing the book and the publisher and I think the book was never done. I think. I'll consult around the house and see if anyone else might remember.

The whole piece is well over 5000 words so it wouldn't have been published in a magazine in that form but it's possible that I might have used some of it in other articles in other places.

Edited to add: The book was a project of Maureen McTeer. She had solicited writers from across the country to interview and prepare first-person accounts from women in politics. Then the book deal fell through for reasons that I'm not sure I ever knew.

(It may be, as my informant and memory-jogger said, "I think -- as the babblers would say -- Maureen flounced.")

[ 16 December 2005: Message edited by: Sharon ]

So that's one of the things we'd need to change before a lot of good women will even consider running for office. Or a lot of good men, for that matter. You shouldn't need a tanned hide; you shouldn't need unhuman emotional control.

quote:

---

Any chance of reviving the project?

---

Tehanu, I can't imagine that this specific project, involving the same people, would be revived. However, I'm pretty sure that someone, somewhere will think about these questions again and decided to organize something that will look for answers. It doesn't seem to be an issue that goes away.

[ 17 December 2005: Message edited by: Sharon ]

No, never.

I would like to see the "mandate from heaven", a Chinese concept, implemented but as it never was there I can't see it actually happening here. Briefly, as I recall it, those who lead are chosen for their virtue and those who are virtuous don't crave power.

I respect women who have made the choice to try to penetrate that world but I fear that too often they are accepted on the basis of their acceptance of the status quo. So, rather than changing the system they are changed by it.

Why did we decide that being equal meant playing by their rules?

My observation is that every time we generate a new "voice" to address the inequities of the status quo that "voice" is quickly co-opted to the status quo with, for example, funding.

I feel like my thoughts are rather incomplete but I wanted to post something as I have been thinking about it. Please excuse.

[ 17 December 2005: Message edited by: a citizen of winnipeg ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
Jack Layton said during the debate that if more women were elected, Question Period would be more civil [or something like that]. Would a Parliament with a majority of women behave differently?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
Regarding writer's link from The Star...

1) Any particular reason why we need to know the age of every woman quoted in the article? Brian Mulroney is mentioned in the article, but we aren't told his age.

---

Nor were we told Kim Campbell's, Anne McLellan's or Flora MacDonald's.

We were told the ages of the people who are the subjects of the article (women who've decided not to run), and not those who are mentioned peripherally.

quote:

---

Not a single woman is running for the Liberal party or Conservative party in Nova Scotia. In New Brunswick, there is just one woman running for office who is not a member of the New Democratic Party.

Across Atlantic Canada's 32 ridings, the Liberal party managed to nominate only two women, the Conservative party only one.

Women are staying off the ballot

---

Women politicians tend to be older than their male counterparts. In the US, in 1997, 26% of men in the House were under 45, only 14% of women. In Canada, the age difference is not so big: for newly elected MPs, women are on average 4.3 years older; average age of all female MPs was 1.2 years older.

Women MPs also tend to have fewer children than men (2.3 vs. 2.7).

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
Mentioning ages seems to be something that is common in newspaper reports. Nick Pashley parodied it in one of his Walk to the Ballpark missives.

---

You get those too!

I didn't see that one, though. Something like this? "The Evergreen Bride, 55, sporting a nifty track suit and last year's sneakers, a lucky find at Honest Ed's, ..."

I have only been on a few. The first was when there was a baseball strike and they were looking for replacement drinkers (hey, this belongs in the skeleton thread too). They were impressed when I showed up with my own mug.

I think the references went more like: Nick Pashley(93) and the Evergreen Bride(23).

quote:

---

Old boys' club tough to crack

Seizing a rare opportunity yesterday morning to question women MPs, 15-year-olds at Havergal College for girls wanted to know how they would divide their time between family and politics without being called bad mothers.

"There are double standards," said Grace Yogaretnam, the Green party candidate for Mississauga-Brampton South. "Stephen Harper has young children, but it's automatically assumed his wife will take care of them."

---

quote:

---

"With incumbents in place, it is hard to change, " said Bennett (incumbent for St. Paul's riding).

"People aren't leaving their seats so what riding do we give the women who are entering the Liberal party?" Bennett said.

...

"Women running for Parliament is not enough, we want to move bodies into Parliament," said Bennett, who is an alumna of Havergal College and who once served on its board.

---

quote:

---

"With incumbents in place, it is hard to change, " said Bennett (incumbent for St. Paul's riding).

"People aren't leaving their seats so what riding do we give the women who are entering the Liberal party?" Bennett said.

---

quote:

---

The stories of women in politics will be the theme of a fundraising gathering for the London Press Club on Thursday, March 30, at the Mocha Shrine Centre.

[London Ward 5 councillor Sandy] White will be there to tell her story again, as will Mayor [Anne-Marie] DiCicco, London West MP Sue Barnes, newly elected London Fanshawe MP Irene Mathyssen, former MPPs and cabinet ministers Diane Cunningham and Marian Boyd and Lampton-Kent-Middlesex MPP Maria Van-Bommel.

---

Mocha Shrine Centre
468 Colbourne St.