They're not voting because...
- The system is institutionally sexist...
The system is institutionally sexist. There are so few women in parliament and little is done to redress this balance. I don't see why I should have to choose between one bunch of middle aged men or another to make decisions on my behalf. They don't represent me.
written 18th Apr 2005
Responses
-
mehkri replies: Why should there be more women just for numbers sake. For Pete's sake, let only the able person come forward. Already in several constituancies, its all women candidates. Are men so bad that they should not have any chances? Every one has a vote and are equal. So let them all try to be MP. If the only issue for not voting is lack of women candidate, actually that is an sexist reason in itself.
written 18th Apr 2005 -
diplomatt replies: if this is what you think you're hardly going to bring it down by sitting at home are you? do you think a man is incapable of reprsenting a woman's opinion (or vice versa). it may be partly to do with human nature, men are much more full of thier own opinions and like to share their (often imagined) wisdom. at a level my english class was 70% female, my psychology 60% female, and politics was 20% female. it's a small sample yes, but i think there is something to be said in that trend. greater female reprsentation is desirable, but not if it means installing mediocrities in order to fill a quota...
written 18th Apr 2005 -
mehkri replies: I should also mention it now that if more women candidates are selected, there is a possibility that those who chose them would go for pretty faces (like Ruth Kelly) rather than brains or ability to deliver.
written 18th Apr 2005 -
non voter replies: The problem is that the lack of women in decision making positions is not being adressed. It is very worrying. What if the system is institutionally sexist in the same way that the police are institutionally racist? This problem can not just be solved by positive discrimination, the reasons need to be investigated, for example antisocial hours, lack of childcare, sexism and bullying, the way decisions are made etc. Of course women can represent men's views and vice versa, but I am suggesting that there is a deeper problem inbedded in the system.
written 18th Apr 2005 -
Rich replies: See above: Women can't be voted into partliament if they aren't standing for their constituency. They can't just drag anyone in off the street to meet a quota. Quotas are wrong, I've said this since organisations, such as the police, have been asked to fill 'ethnic minority' quotas, and such.
Just pick the person who can do the job best, ignoring their race: If a particular white individual can do a job better than an individual who belongs to an ethnic minority, pick them, and vice versa.
written 18th Apr 2005 -
Vee replies: Women aren't represented in Parliament in a fair war NOT because women cant do it or because they need EXTRA support. God as a women i DESPISE quotas. What needs to be done to readdress the balance is to provide more support for women MPs. Proper hours. Better childcare. Equal opportunities to gain promotion.
PLEASE no more quotas.
written 18th Apr 2005 -
mehkri replies: For original poster: I feel that women are given lot of encouragement to join and then stay in politics. Moment one of them is elected, they are promoted to front bench or as close to it. That despite their track record. The current women minister for children affairs had to publicly apologize for calling an abused child under council care as 'disturbed'(allegedly she was responsible for children care by that borough). Imagine if a such thing had been uttered by male MP - he would have gone home on 'health reasons'. Never mind where they come from Labour, tory or liberal.
written 19th Apr 2005 -
luther blissett replies: Knew it would only be so long before the misandry crept in.
"What needs to be done to readdress the balance is to provide more support for women MPs."
What support do you need? You're just as capable as men.
"Proper hours. Better childcare. "
What? Maybe more women should try to focus on one thing (in this case a career as an MP) rather than trying to have it all.
When I have kids , I would like to spend time with them, to help and watch them grow, which to me means working part time, and taking a career knock. Your children should be more important than your career.
"Equal opportunities to gain promotion."
Firstly, work longer hours. Secondly, learn to be better team players. Anyone watched "the Apprentice" recently?
It is a fact that a group of people is resistant to members of another group entering their preserve. So women do find it hard to break into "male industries" like politics, just as migrants all over the world often find themselves unwelcome, it's all part of our idiotic herd mentality.
But women are just as bad at this as men; and just as macho as men in their posturing and the defence of their terriotories . I only have one female friend who doesn't insist that she's "always right" and ironically she works for the labour party.
written 19th Apr 2005 -
softfruit replies: What difference will it make? Remember the out-gay Labour MPs in 2000 who voted to keep section 28 because the party whips told them to?
You need good MPs in touch with their constituents best interest, not a carefully measured parliament of 321 men, 323 women, five transsexuals and an intersexed person.
written 19th Apr 2005 -
luther blissett replies: Yes, the XXY and XYY and XXX chromosomed *are* under represented in parliament. ;op
written 19th Apr 2005 -
qwerty replies: The trouble is, until there's a genuinely level playing field in the professions and environs that get you to being an electable candidate, there's no chance of equality. The lack of women MPs is an effect, not a cause. I entirely agree that quotas like all-women lists suck - the only way in which they support equality is that men and women both hate them! I want to see a society that offers equal opportunities to all people, regardless of their sex, sexuality, (dis)ability, colour, religion, etc, etc. Then we can all make a proper decision on the individuals' merits, and at that point, we may end up with 650 men, 650 women or 325 man to woman transsexuals and 325 vice versa. And as for the "Minister for Women", don't get me started! I am a woman and I'm interested in the NHS, law and order, international relations, taxes and Gov't spending, sleaze, the environment, etc. Er, exactly how does that make me different from a man?
written 20th Apr 2005 -
Matt B replies: can we have more tall left handers in parliament - male or female - as I feel under-represented. with glasses too would help.
written 20th Apr 2005 -
mehkri replies: to Qwerty: where does this Minister for Women come from? Just for information sake.
to Matt B: Stand up mate, you have my vote.
written 20th Apr 2005 -
Anonymous replies: Minister for women: As a man, can I apply for the job?
written 20th Apr 2005 -
Matt B replies: Of course you can be minister for women as a bloke - they've set the precedent by having the minister for children as an adult. Otherwise that would be sexist wouldn't it?
Mehkri: thanks for the vote I feel empowered now. Watch out Westminster!
written 20th Apr 2005 -
bigoll replies: I'm sorry - did I see Ruth Kelly described here as a pretty face? I think you should adjust the settings on your TV - what a shocker! Also an inept speaker if Question Time was anything to judge by.
written 20th Apr 2005 -
mehkri replies: Bigoll: Come on - she is pretty but that was the point: she has a lot better apperance than brain - yes I had her performance in last weeks question time in mind. Also I had considered the performance of the current Minister for Children. ome to think of it - you could add the the junior Home Office minister.
written 20th Apr 2005 -
Jax replies: Glass ceilings only exist to those who believe in them or those that have already given up.
written 20th Apr 2005 -
luther blissett replies: According to research made by the Centre for Economics and Business Research for the Liverpool Victoria friendly society.
"The research found that millionaires aged under 45 and over 65 were more likely to be women. There are 47,355 female millionaires aged 18 to 44 compared with 37,935 men. Among the over-65s there are 71,369 millionaire women compared with 67,865 men."
What glass ceiling?
written 22nd Apr 2005 -
Liza replies: If ur so worried about wmen adn elections then maybe u SHOULD vote... after all people died to give women the right to vote and so plz respect that also a glass celing is the idea that a perosn can not get any higer (normally within emplyoment)because of an "invisable" barrie-the glass celing it does happen and unfortunaly i belive it alwasy will
written 22nd Apr 2005 -
Tiger43 replies: I agree with the original poster. There should be more sex in politics, especially if its girl politician on girl politician. Personally I think politicians should interbreed, if they aren`t inbred allready.
written 22nd Apr 2005 -
luther blissett replies: Liza, we're not worried, just bored with all the empty slogans that castigate men with no basis.
What women like you seem to be asking for is a Prime Minister who can keep afternoons free for the kids. And no woman would ever vote for that.
I would vote for the sexy lezzer Prime Minister duo though (just to annoy you).
written 22nd Apr 2005 -
Anonymous replies: 'And it is for the women to act as they (the husbands) act by them, in all fairness; but the men are a step above them.'[7] (Q. 2:228)
'Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other.'(Q. 4:34)
written 2nd May 2005 -
tiger43 replies: To Anonymous............Your`e weird!!
written 2nd May 2005 -
Nick replies: Equality is not measured by bums-on-seats.
Anyone who wants to take an opposing view, please outline your proposals for addressing the biggest sex-imbalance in Britain today: namely, our prison population.
written 2nd May 2005
