Author
|
Topic: Women in politics: would you run?
|
Tehanu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9854
|
posted 13 December 2005 04:56 PM
I was looking for a thread on this -- there are a few riding-specific and province-specific discussions, but I'd like to start a broader topic on women running for office, particularly considering the low number of women in parliament and who are running as candidates ... 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 ) 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?
From: Desperately trying to stop procrastinating | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 13 December 2005 05:21 PM
Really interesting question, Tehanu.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. Politics is an exhausting life personally, and again, I think that still matters to a lot of women. Maybe others are inspired at the thought of flying back and forth to Ottawa weekly, but I sure wouldn't be.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 14 December 2005 08:18 AM
Loretta wrote: 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? 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?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 14 December 2005 09:01 AM
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?
Questions like this that need to be asked more. 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?
That's a cute image, him sneaking back in to work.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 ]
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881
|
posted 14 December 2005 09:02 AM
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. So, there you go. My big reasons that I can think of right now why I won't go into politics.
From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210
|
posted 14 December 2005 07:12 PM
I can definitely imagine a time when I would run for office. In this 'imagining' I am a fair bit older than I am now, and hopefully have I'll have learned a bit more in the way of time management, and in the way of controlling my the responses I give in exasperation with certain parts of Canadian politics... but, yes I see it as a definite possibility. Having said that, I can't imagine, given the political climate and my political orientation, that I would win. Like my mum (Loretta), but for different reasons, I think I would be more suited to the job of being the assistant to a politician. I much prefer doing behind-the-scenes work, as it is direct interaction with people, and as someone said before, I don't think lying accomplishes anything good (atleast in terms of public office), so I don't like to do it. I also don't feel a particularly strong party loyalty, so when I feel as though I should critique some action, I will.... Actually, now that I've put it that way, I don't know that I ever want to "grow up" enough to run for office. I like those things about myself.
From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013
|
posted 15 December 2005 12:06 AM
So, do you want 50% of mla and mp posts reserved for women? Or do you want to be the people behind the scenes that make it all happen? This IS important. I have been campaigning to bring electoral reform into bc and some women in fair vote canada are very much against STV because as a system,it cannot guarantee a high number of women in politics. (Women in the CA seemed to see the thing differently and the CA was half women). 2 women ¨politicians¨ that I admire a lot are Maude Barlow and ex president of Ireland Mary Robinson. Both women are genuses, and have had an incredible influence on society without being politicians in the normal sense of the word. Mary Robinson became president of Ireland when she was not even a member of a political party! (She did great work before as a constitutional lawyer and afterwards as un human rights commissioner). So, perhaps it is a good thing sometimes to be a little in the background? No male Irish politician ever came close to as being as important in the world as Mary Robinson. Also, did women vote more than men for STV in the BC referendum? (I think polls showed that they did) This might also be an important femanist issue. The referendum needed 60% support to be approved. Simply put, that means that 40 votes for first past the post were worth 60 votes for STV. (Each first past the post vote was worth 1.5 stv votes) So, if a higher percentage of women than men were in the second group, that means that the votes of women (as a group) were worth less than the votes of men! I personally believe that 60% approval requirements violate one person one vote. As for raising the number of women in politics, slightly more than half the population is women, do they decline to vote for women? If women acted as a group to make politics less of a bloodsport, I think it would change overnight! And then more women would feel comfertable entering the profession. Could you have aggression grading of politicians by a womans committee? This candidate goes for the jugular too much, dont vote for for him! type deal? Kinda like speed bumps for nasty political behaviour? Is female competition partly keeping women from being more successful in politics? Do women tend to vote for men when there is a choice? Take Care Brian
From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222
|
posted 15 December 2005 12:40 AM
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 ]
From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013
|
posted 15 December 2005 01:18 AM
¨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¨. Why not redesign it from a womans prespective, then? I dont see a problem with that, do you? How can you make it work better? Figure it out, achive concensus, (you are women, after all, so concensus is possible) and impliment the changes. I am male, so I cannot be part of it but I can goad you? What exactly stops women from entering politics? Find what it is, remove the barriers and problem solved!
From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222
|
posted 15 December 2005 03:39 AM
This looks good for the holidays: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. Serves: 4
From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 15 December 2005 08:09 AM
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. I dunno. Sometimes I like the idea. Prepare for howls of protest from the cons, though.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
marcella
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9772
|
posted 15 December 2005 12:49 PM
I've read only most of the posts so if this is a repeat, my apologies...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. I don't think we will get more womyn in power until more men are willing to change the political system.
From: ottawa | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 15 December 2005 01:02 PM
Another issue related to our current electoral system: 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. The system itself is a problem. Most incumbents end up having a very easy life of it, sometimes a questionably easy life; but the overwhelming majority of candidates are playing losing hands from the outset, which is not inspiring.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
mamitalinda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5510
|
posted 15 December 2005 01:34 PM
As some babblers may recall, once upon a time I ran for school board. I wasn't elected, but got a fair amount of support given the circumstances. If nothing else, it was a good "test case" for whether I might want to run for political office again. At the time, my son was eighteen months old, I had just finished my degree and was looking for work in my field at the same time (school board is, for many, another full time job, but it is not remunerated as such). My campaign was funded by my parents, a wonderful graphic designer who donated my pamphlet in-kind, a couple of local politicians whom I respect and admire, and some wonderfully sympathetic members of the NDP and my community. 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. All that said, were I to run, it would definitely be provincially. There's no way I would consider federal politics until my kid(s) had moved out. I'm too much of a boy's mama (this is the opposite of a mama's boy, I suppose.)
From: Babblers On Strike! | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fast_twitch_neurons
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10443
|
posted 15 December 2005 02:01 PM
[male intervention]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. Oh, and personally, this male would likely never run for federal office, though he used to dream of it. Too much work to become just a backbencher, and I don't even think I'd even be a great politician. I'm a bad liar, and I have no patience for bullshit and asskissing. There's other things which I can do better.
From: Montreal | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 15 December 2005 03:05 PM
Errrrr ... Parts of that article raise old conflicts for me - like, some of the particular women the article thinks of to profile raise some old conflicts, beginning with Janice Stein and continuing on to Sherry Cooper, eg.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. Maude Barlow would be another prime example of such a political woman.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Sharon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4090
|
posted 15 December 2005 05:17 PM
Reading this thread reminded me of a profile I had written about Alexa (McDonough) in the early '90s on this very subject. I just went back and read some of it -- it's long -- but here's a short excerpt: 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 ]
From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881
|
posted 15 December 2005 07:43 PM
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. That being said, the face of politics would definitely change if more women were to get involved.... not necessarily because they are nicer, but because women just think differently from men. They may approach disasters differently, they may be more compassionate, they may interact differently with the public, etc.
From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013
|
posted 16 December 2005 02:25 AM
But really, men cannot redesign politics from a womans perspective. For starters, they dont have a clue what you want changed. So, you cannot leave it up to them. What do you want to change about politics and what specific changes do you have in mind? After all, you gotta start somewhere. Accidental Altruist recent-rabble-rouser 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? Gee, you make it sound so simple. I'll gladly stride into your workplace tomorrow and redesign it. Shouldn't take long to test your theory!
From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625
|
posted 16 December 2005 04:37 AM
Sharon, that was a great excerpt about Alexa.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 ]
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299
|
posted 16 December 2005 11:57 AM
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. 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. 2) I think I may have read that interview before. Was that published in the much-missed Canadian Forum?
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sharon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4090
|
posted 16 December 2005 04:19 PM
Thanks, meades and Scott.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 ]
From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 16 December 2005 07:53 PM
When i was much younger, more energetic and single, i might have considered politics. Would have wiped out early: though i was bright, articulate and good-looking, i was also idealistic and sensitive. One little video-clip of me bursting into tears at a betrayal would have buried that political career, right?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. Now, i wouldn't even consider it, for all the reasons mentioned (except the skeletons: i've never done anything that interesting) and one more: the general population doesn't deserve the sacrifice. Some people are worth a huge effort; some people are worth risking one's life for, giving up one's leisure time for, shelving one's own needs and setting aside one's personal desires. But the great Canadian nation has lost much of my respect over the last 20 years, and pretty much all of my optisim.
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
rinne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9117
|
posted 17 December 2005 11:23 AM
Good question. 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 ]
From: prairies | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 17 December 2005 12:36 PM
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. We could certainly question why we needed to know any of their ages, but the decision doesn't seem to have been made on the issue of sex.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582
|
posted 20 December 2005 11:55 AM
I'm working on a book on this subject, so I'll add some factoids. 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). Mentioning ages in the media drives me nuts too, but not as much as mentioning what women are wearing . Like, have you ever read: 'Paul Martin, sporting a tailor-made caramel-coloured 3-button suit and a hunter green silk tie. . . ?'
From: away | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838
|
posted 20 December 2005 12:31 PM
Have we been on a Walk together?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). The Evergreen Bride is indeed pretty and elegant at all times.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 21 December 2005 01:12 PM
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.
Gaaaah! What is wrong with that picture?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
NWOntarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9295
|
posted 08 March 2006 12:57 PM
I noticed there are a number of London-area babblers around, so I'm going to pass on something I saw in the paper today: 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. Tickets: $15 adults, $10 students/press club members; available from Mystic Books and the London press club.
From: London, ON | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|