Women in politics

[Black Dog]

My quesiton is: why is it important to ENCOURAGE women to enter politics? Are we saying they can't do it on their own?

And more importantly: WHAT BARRIERS exist today? So far all I have heard on this is that your "feelings might get hurt" if you enter politics. What a joke. That barrier exists for men and women equally.

Come up with something concrete or quit whining about the "poor little women".

I dunno, what barriers there are, but then, I'm not a woman who's tried to enter politics.

Sheila Copps, however, is.

Spector's outburst is a small sampling of what women have been putting up with for years.

One of the nice things about working in the media is that the slurs are fewer and less vitriolic than those that flooded my inbox as a member of Parliament. But just as Stronach was getting her Spector comeuppance this week, I received a letter that purported to explain exactly why there are so few women in politics.

A reader named Grant (he was so proud of his letter that he refused to put a last name to it) wrote to the Sun to complain about a column I wrote lamenting the shortage of women in Parliament.

He compared me to garlic that "keeps on repeating" and went on to say I was a reason for the gender gap: "I mean, do we really want more dimwits like her in Parliament. She's so dumb that I have furniture that's smarter than her ... By the way, have you seen the dimwitted Copps' fat ass lately? There should be a red flag on that ass and a sign that says: WIDE LOAD. Copps got that fat ass from years of grazing in the public trough at taxpayers' expense. You better widen the doorways and fortify the chairs at the Sun!"

Steeled by years of political guff, I chuckled at the diatribe and set it aside. Then I realized how much Grant's views dovetailed with those of Spector.

Of course someone who doesn't believe sexism exists or who resorts to unproveable "just-so" stories to justify gender inequalites is unlikely to be swayed by the voice of experience.

[JerrySeinfeld]

My quesiton is: why is it important to ENCOURAGE women to enter politics? Are we saying they can't do it on their own?

And more importantly: WHAT BARRIERS exist today? So far all I have heard on this is that your "feelings might get hurt" if you enter politics. What a joke. That barrier exists for men and women equally.

Come up with something concrete or quit whining about the "poor little women".

I dunno, what barriers there are, but then, I'm not a woman who's tried to enter politics.

Sheila Copps, however, is.

Spector's outburst is a small sampling of what women have been putting up with for years.

One of the nice things about working in the media is that the slurs are fewer and less vitriolic than those that flooded my inbox as a member of Parliament. But just as Stronach was getting her Spector comeuppance this week, I received a letter that purported to explain exactly why there are so few women in politics.

A reader named Grant (he was so proud of his letter that he refused to put a last name to it) wrote to the Sun to complain about a column I wrote lamenting the shortage of women in Parliament.

He compared me to garlic that "keeps on repeating" and went on to say I was a reason for the gender gap: "I mean, do we really want more dimwits like her in Parliament. She's so dumb that I have furniture that's smarter than her ... By the way, have you seen the dimwitted Copps' fat ass lately? There should be a red flag on that ass and a sign that says: WIDE LOAD. Copps got that fat ass from years of grazing in the public trough at taxpayers' expense. You better widen the doorways and fortify the chairs at the Sun!"

Steeled by years of political guff, I chuckled at the diatribe and set it aside. Then I realized how much Grant's views dovetailed with those of Spector.

Of course someone who doesn't believe sexism exists or who resorts to unproveable "just-so" stories to justify gender inequalites is unlikely to be swayed by the voice of experience.

So your evidence of barriers to women in politics is a mean letter to Shiela Copps - as if she's the only politician to get angry mail?

That's sooo weak.

Let's see some evidence that MEANS something - other than "hey you hurt my feelings".

[mikedavid00]

Maybe women see people like Belinda Stronach, and think to themselves that they don't ever want to get into politics. I don't even know why Belinda is in parliament, what did she do that was so great.

She did try to stop the corruption with in the Liberal party and bring democrocy to it. She lobbied for the 'one member, one vote' system that would have ensured Ignatieff/Rae a victory. She lost though.

She deserves credit for that.

Anyways, more women in parliament sure, but how would you do it. The only real way to garauntee having more women in parliament is through proportional representation.

PS: The job I want to get into is made up of about 80% women, but I haven't seen a huge push for equity lately, nor do I see the need to.

I agree. The status quo is proven not to work. It's been proven over and over and over again. It's proven to help those that are less qualififed, which, in the end, is *not* fair to everyone so it's self defeating.

[Melanie_]

I'm having trouble following your argument, but I think you mean "quota system", not "status quo". Status quo means the system as it currently is in place, which I think you are supporting, not trying to change.

As for why women aren't in politics....

I can't speak for the entire gender; I'm going to assume every woman has her own reasons why she does or doesn't enter politics. Family committments seem to be a likely reason to me. But politics has been an "old boys club" for so long, I think any woman who enters politics should be aware that she will have to break through that barrier, even today, although we certainly have come a long way. Women are perceived to only be interested in "women's issues"; this is the equivalent to a benevolent pat on the head and a "we'll take care of the big stuff, sweetie."

[Black Dog]

So your evidence of barriers to women in politics is a mean letter to Shiela Copps - as if she's the only politician to get angry mail?

That's sooo weak.

Let's see some evidence that MEANS something - other than "hey you hurt my feelings".

It's an example. Another such example would be stuff like:

Because men and women are different. We're not the same. We're not equal. We have equal RIGHTS but that doesn't make us WANT to do the same things.

Which has also been used to justify why women shouldn't be alowed to vote, run for office, own property, etc etc.

[blueblood]

Maybe women see people like Belinda Stronach, and think to themselves that they don't ever want to get into politics. I don't even know why Belinda is in parliament, what did she do that was so great.

Anyways, more women in parliament sure, but how would you do it. The only real way to garauntee having more women in parliament is through proportional representation.

PS: The job I want to get into is made up of about 80% women, but I haven't seen a huge push for equity lately, nor do I see the need to.

Clearly if you can ensure that women stay out of politics in the current system, you can also ensure that there are more women in politics under the current system. I don't see how the number of female MPs relates to proportional representation - or that the 4:1 men:women ratio can be explained by it.

Maybe women see Belinda Stronach and think that they don't want the media to describe their clothing as the most important thing about them and they don't want to be blamed for everything that men can get away with without any notice.

Shouldn't men look at male politicians and the corruption and scandal men are involved in and decide to leave politics to women? What did Bernier do to be in parliament? He didn't even run.

There doesn't need to be proportional representation, just good old fashioned competition. If a woman is better than the guy, she should get party nomination and if she's a better choice of a candidate then get elected. If the guy is better, then he should win, it's all about choice, it's simple. Maybe women aren't in politics because they might just not want to for whatever reason, so what. Look at it this way, should a male MP/candidate whose doing a good job lose his spot for someone just because she's a woman? This affirmative action BS is crippling our country and this culture of being penalized because you work hard to better yourself from others has got to stop. Getting elected in politics is a bitter competition and if you don't stack up your not in.

So women just don't want to get ahead - they are stupid and lack ambition. Or they do want to get ahead - but they are stupid and therefore unelectable. Come out and say it outloud.

Hahahahahahaha!!!! try reading my post, I did not once say anybody was stupid. There are women MPs in Ottawa because they were better than their opponents. A woman might not want to get into politics for the same reason I don't want to work in an office building, ITS NOT FOR ME!! Like I say the best person for the best job, and you saying that the male/female ratio in parliament is skewed because of sexism is laughable, maybe it's due to simple competition and the more qualified person won, live with it.

[JerrySeinfeld]

So your evidence of barriers to women in politics is a mean letter to Shiela Copps - as if she's the only politician to get angry mail?

That's sooo weak.

Let's see some evidence that MEANS something - other than "hey you hurt my feelings".

It's an example. Another such example would be stuff like:

Because men and women are different. We're not the same. We're not equal. We have equal RIGHTS but that doesn't make us WANT to do the same things.

Which has also been used to justify why women shouldn't be alowed to vote, run for office, own property, etc etc.

Umm - big time straw man. I never once used the argument to justify anything. I'm simply explaining the FACT that less women participate in politics despite having every encouragement and opportunity to do so, and despite the LACK of any barriers to them doing so.

Why? Because as other women on here have posted, there may be priorities that matter to a greater percentage of women than entering politics.

Men and women are different. I'm not sure why you seem to have such a tough time accepting that FACT.

Meantime I applaud all women who enter politics and am sick of people exaggerating and even inventing barriers the "poor little women" have to face.

[mikedavid00]

I'm having trouble following your argument, but I think you mean "quota system", not "status quo". Status quo means the system as it currently is in place, which I think you are supporting, not trying to change.

As for why women aren't in politics....

I can't speak for the entire gender; I'm going to assume every woman has her own reasons why she does or doesn't enter politics. Family committments seem to be a likely reason to me. But politics has been an "old boys club" for so long, I think any woman who enters politics should be aware that she will have to break through that barrier, even today, although we certainly have come a long way. Women are perceived to only be interested in "women's issues"; this is the equivalent to a benevolent pat on the head and a "we'll take care of the big stuff, sweetie."

Well it doesn't help when the women in the Liberal party form a womens coalition for womens issues which is lead by Belinda Stronach. I know that is her clever way of getting herself in power as i'm sure she's going to continue to get herself in power over the years.

Politics is not an old boys club. There's just more boys. If there were more girls, it would be a girls club.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I'm having trouble following your argument, but I think you mean "quota system", not "status quo". Status quo means the system as it currently is in place, which I think you are supporting, not trying to change.

As for why women aren't in politics....

I can't speak for the entire gender; I'm going to assume every woman has her own reasons why she does or doesn't enter politics. Family committments seem to be a likely reason to me. But politics has been an "old boys club" for so long, I think any woman who enters politics should be aware that she will have to break through that barrier, even today, although we certainly have come a long way. Women are perceived to only be interested in "women's issues"; this is the equivalent to a benevolent pat on the head and a "we'll take care of the big stuff, sweetie."

Well it doesn't help when the women in the Liberal party form a womens coalition for womens issues which is lead by Belinda Stronach. I know that is her clever way of getting herself in power as i'm sure she's going to continue to get herself in power over the years.

Politics is not an old boys club. There's just more boys. If there were more girls, it would be a girls club.

Precisely. As a small example: Without even looking I'd wager that once you're elected your chances of becoming a cabinet minister if you are a woman MP is far higher than that of a male MP.

I'd say life for women in politics is pretty damn good!

[guyser]

Politics is an old boys club, and quite an exclusive one at that.

But some of the reason why there are not more women in politics comes down to money.

Put your name in the hat for the local riding with all the others. Then one of them is nominated by the party.This is where the money comes in. The men have access to more of it. More contacts in the business world, more contacts to produce funds for the party. ergo more male nominations.

Women are mothers, and many of them see the idea of moving to Ottawa , or Queens Park or (insert capital here) as a daunting thankless job and frankly some of them do not want to be away from the kids.

Some of them look at Belinda and say they do not want to be treated as eye candy.

I suspect , and this is only me, but I suspect that women are less beholden to the people that got them there . And if that assumption is correct then those in the nominating party are less to nominate women.

Frankly I would love to see more women in power. In fact reverse the numbers and I am happy. Hopefully before long we can have another women run this coun try , the first one didnt do so well.

Belinda maybe...?....she does know the business world. But there is some baggage there that would not preclude a man from achieving the same.

And lastly....politics is sexist.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Politics is an old boys club, and quite an exclusive one at that.

But some of the reason why there are not more women in politics comes down to money.

Put your name in the hat for the local riding with all the others. Then one of them is nominated by the party.This is where the money comes in. The men have access to more of it. More contacts in the business world, more contacts to produce funds for the party. ergo more male nominations.

Women are mothers, and many of them see the idea of moving to Ottawa , or Queens Park or (insert capital here) as a daunting thankless job and frankly some of them do not want to be away from the kids.

Some of them look at Belinda and say they do not want to be treated as eye candy.

I suspect , and this is only me, but I suspect that women are less beholden to the people that got them there . And if that assumption is correct then those in the nominating party are less to nominate women.

Frankly I would love to see more women in power. In fact reverse the numbers and I am happy. Hopefully before long we can have another women run this coun try , the first one didnt do so well.

Belinda maybe...?....she does know the business world. But there is some baggage there that would not preclude a man from achieving the same.

And lastly....politics is sexist.

Actually the nomination process is pretty grassroots. It usually takes place at a community hall or gymnasium and is attended by the individual supporters of each candidate-hopeful. It usually takes around 300-400 votes to win.

Your comments about "more contacts" are bogus and could be slanted the other way too: ie. "Men spend all their time at the office cavorting with people who don't even live in the riding so can't nominate him - whereas the man's wife has more time to socialize and participate in community events and fundraisers, which makes her a much more viable candidate."

Your point here is a good one though:

Women are mothers, and many of them see the idea of moving to Ottawa , or Queens Park or (insert capital here) as a daunting thankless job and frankly some of them do not want to be away from the kids.

WHich is exactly what I've been saying. Now you are the one who came up with the possbile reasons and I'll leave that to you. But you have made the point: women do have different priorities and may not involve themselves for their own reasons. Point made.

[guyser]

Politics is an old boys club, and quite an exclusive one at that.

But some of the reason why there are not more women in politics comes down to money.

Put your name in the hat for the local riding with all the others. Then one of them is nominated by the party.This is where the money comes in. The men have access to more of it. More contacts in the business world, more contacts to produce funds for the party. ergo more male nominations.

Women are mothers, and many of them see the idea of moving to Ottawa , or Queens Park or (insert capital here) as a daunting thankless job and frankly some of them do not want to be away from the kids.

Some of them look at Belinda and say they do not want to be treated as eye candy.

I suspect , and this is only me, but I suspect that women are less beholden to the people that got them there . And if that assumption is correct then those in the nominating party are less to nominate women.

Frankly I would love to see more women in power. In fact reverse the numbers and I am happy. Hopefully before long we can have another women run this coun try , the first one didnt do so well.

Belinda maybe...?....she does know the business world. But there is some baggage there that would not preclude a man from achieving the same.

And lastly....politics is sexist.

Actually the nomination process is pretty grassroots. It usually takes place at a community hall or gymnasium and is attended by the individual supporters of each candidate-hopeful. It usually takes around 300-400 votes to win.

Your comments about "more contacts" are bogus and could be slanted the other way too: ie. "Men spend all their time at the office cavorting with people who don't even live in the riding so can't nominate him - whereas the man's wife has more time to socialize and participate in community events and fundraisers, which makes her a much more viable candidate."

Your point here is a good one though:

Women are mothers, and many of them see the idea of moving to Ottawa , or Queens Park or (insert capital here) as a daunting thankless job and frankly some of them do not want to be away from the kids.

WHich is exactly what I've been saying. Now you are the one who came up with the possbile reasons and I'll leave that to you. But you have made the point: women do have different priorities and may not involve themselves for their own reasons. Point made.

Methinks you have a narrow vision of nominations and contacts. And I will admit I am no expert at this.

When I mentioned contacts, I did not mean for party nominations. I meant contacts for political furtherence. Business men and women make contacts all the time in various industries. When elected they have some knowledge of that business or at least the right name to call concerning that industry.

Now for those being nominated the party would have a very good idea on who is connected. This is what they all want (but very hard to get some business people to go public political office) Now if candidate A and candidate B are equal but B is a business man with some good contacts , he gets the nom. Plenty of good noms have been thrown to the wayside as business connected people have been pushed ahead.

This is canada, not the US. Community events and fundraisers are all well and fine, but they are not the pool the noms are looking in.

Gerard Kennedy comes to mind, Belinda Stronach is another. Take out the contacts and really what have you left? This is not to slag on either one, but the power they wield, or the contacts they have (Belinda has both) is what gets them ahead.

[madmax]

So Dion is slapping on his social engineeering hat to bump up the number of women in politics.

That's kind of a joke. There isn't anything stopping women from entering politics today other than their own personal decisions based on unique circumstances.

Gee - what a novel concept.

I think it is funny that this is getting any kind of attention at all. I think Golda Meir led Israel in the 60s, Indira Gandi, and Margarat Thatcher lead India and Britain in the 80s, many women have run and led countries, including Progressive Conservative Kim Campbell. As as the NDP had 2 women leaders prior to Layton.

But running and getting elected are different kettles of fish. For one thing its POLITICS. There are more factors then the best Candidate, etc, many more factors.

Regardless, if the Liberals want to play catchup , with parties like the NDP which have had policies to seek out a female nominee for each riding for over 30 years, or maybe have a female leader one day, like the Conservatives Choose in the 90s. Let them

But really, is this news in 2006?

I don't think the Conservatives or the NDP are actually going backwards on their beliefs past practices, so what's the big deal with the Liberals?

Is this really newsworthy? I think well forget about it within a week.

[mikedavid00]

Precisely. As a small example: Without even looking I'd wager that once you're elected your chances of becoming a cabinet minister if you are a woman MP is far higher than that of a male MP.

I'd say life for women in politics is pretty damn good!

It's the same in IT. As soon as a woman applies to a job, everyone tries their hardest to hire her. Men like having women around. I would wager to say, that when a team is all women, they are the ones that keep the men out. 'Ladies night out', girls only gyms, 'womens issues', etc.

Belinda has helped form a females coalition so she can have a group backing her for her political future in the party. Just a guess. Time will tell.

[Saturn]

So Dion is slapping on his social engineeering hat to bump up the number of women in politics.

That's kind of a joke. There isn't anything stopping women from entering politics today other than their own personal decisions based on unique circumstances.

Gee - what a novel concept.

I think it is funny that this is getting any kind of attention at all. I think Golda Meir led Israel in the 60s, Indira Gandi, and Margarat Thatcher lead India and Britain in the 80s, many women have run and led countries, including Progressive Conservative Kim Campbell. As as the NDP had 2 women leaders prior to Layton.

But running and getting elected are different kettles of fish. For one thing its POLITICS. There are more factors then the best Candidate, etc, many more factors.

Regardless, if the Liberals want to play catchup , with parties like the NDP which have had policies to seek out a female nominee for each riding for over 30 years, or maybe have a female leader one day, like the Conservatives Choose in the 90s. Let them

But really, is this news in 2006?

I don't think the Conservatives or the NDP are actually going backwards on their beliefs past practices, so what's the big deal with the Liberals?

Is this really newsworthy? I think well forget about it within a week.

I think that this is just a lot of fluff on behalf of Dion. Like in the last election, the Liberals will have more female candidates and most of them will be in unwinnable ridings. I just enjoy seeing the conservative supporters having heart attacks over women taking over the world.

[mikedavid00]

Men and women are different. I'm not sure why you seem to have such a tough time accepting that FACT.

I agree. I don't see what's so hard about grasping that fact.

Also, remember the big ordeal about there being no male teachers entering the profession? It's laughable becuase again, it's just the opposite of the sexes.

The differnce is, is everyone said 'opposite of the sexes' when the teacher headlines made news, but when it's women in politics.. oh boy. You can't use that argument.

[Canadian Blue]

I think that this is just a lot of fluff on behalf of Dion. Like in the last election, the Liberals will have more female candidates and most of them will be in unwinnable ridings. I just enjoy seeing the conservative supporters having heart attacks over women taking over the world.

Like Thatcher Saturn