Occupy the Internet
The Chamber of Politics U.S. Politics Can women reach equal representation in US political offices?
THINQon is a platform for a more intelligent web. It aims to replace the ruling paradigm of the web – that of sharing and gathering information – with a sharing and achieving of understanding. Instead of the Q&A model it offers an experience. A platform for discovery of ideas, people, and yourself.     Continue >
Can women reach equal representation in US political offices?
Can the United States achieve gender equality in our elected officials without relying on a gender quota?  Gender Parity is another term for it that is quite popular in other parts of the world.  Parity is the state of being equal and "gender" parity is the state of having equality and fairness for women in terms of our numbers in the population.  The United States ranks 70 in the world in terms of gender parity in our congress and other areas of government.  

 In the United States women have disparity or inequality in terms of our representation.  Women are 51% of the population, but we are only 17% of our congress. We only have two women justices on our Supreme Court. We have never had a woman president or Vice President. We have 6 women governors. We have 4 women in the president’s cabinet.   It's been a long time since we fought for basic equal rights for women in the US (50 years) yet we are lagging in terms of equality with our elected officials. 

It is known that when women achieve parity in parliaments around the world the lives of its citizens is better.  Congresswoman Caroyn Maloney has written about women’s parity in our government. "Rumors of Our Progress Have been Greatly Exaggerated" She writes that things shift when women are represented with more than just one or two women. When we are in large numbers the debates start to shift.  In parliaments around the world that have achieved parity the country is positively affected in terms of greater legislation for issues such as childcare, violence against women, work, healthcare etc. 

Gender parity is happening in some unusual places. Boliva, is one such place. Recently in Bolivia President Morales proudly announced that they had achieved gender parity in his cabinet. He said, "My great dream has come true: half of the members of my cabinet are women, and half are men," said a visibly moved Morales when he presented his new team of ministers Saturday, the day after he was sworn in to a second term."

Bolivia: Unprecedented Gender Parity in Cabinet

 http://bit.ly/cuwtPe

In Rwanda, gender parity was instituted as a gender quota. They realized that the large scale violence that occurred there was partly enabled by the lack of women in power.  When they achieved parity in their parliament the women in parliament made a major change: they introduced legislation to make rape a crime. It passed and the men noted that it is legislation they would have never introduced.


There are places in the US where parity is rearing its head. New Hampshire is that place. 

 "Still, there's something in the air in New Hampshire. Until recently it was the only state in the country that did not provide free public kindergarten - and defiantly so. Now the state offers grants and other incentives to its local school districts to provide kindergarten classes, and only a tiny handful are still resisting. There's even a mandatory seat-belt law under serious consideration, in a state where the God-given right to bash one's own skull in has been long revered. What could be causing this unprecedented turn in Granite State politics? Here's one idea: women.” 

The Matriarchy Up North, Boston Globe

http://bit.ly/qH2HE

From the UN report on Women, UNIFEM they had this to say:

 “Nevertheless, higher numbers of women in parliament generally contribute to stronger attention to women’s issues. A large-scale survey of members of parliament undertaken by the Inter-Parliamentary Union recently found that over 90 per cent of respondents agreed that women bring different views, perspectives and talents to politics, and an equally large percentage of male and female respondents believed that “women give priority to those issues believed to be women’s issues.” In the words of one member of parliament, “It’s the women in politics who put women’s rights and violence against women and children on the political agenda.”

http://www.unifem.org/progress/2008/

 So my question is this: How do we help to change women’s great disparity in politics so we can help make our country a more equitable place for all of us?
I don't have much to say Gen but I wanted to respond as it's an important topic. I agree with your goal, so let's try to think how to get there.

The US doesn't have a general election where they choose all the senators together, but it is separated to elections where each senator stands on their own for election. In these kinds of election it is much harder to have quotas. Are we going to decide the senator from Iowa has to be a woman? On the other hand perhaps states with 2 senators could be mandated to have at least 1 woman. For that to happen both senators would have to be voted on during the same election and be voted together, which is not currently the case, I think. (I haven't voted in the US elections so am not completely sure).
 
Similarly with the house of representatives. The election would need to change to a more common vote for several representatives rather than by each precinct. This seems to me to be a much better method generally as it would circumvent all the cheating with redistricting which are really like stealing the election anyway.

There is the bigger question of whether parity is good. On this the answer seems so unequivocally yes! It would completely change politics, and in a country like the US, it would change world politics.

One last point. In many areas affirmative action requires a lowering of the level in the short term. Yes, perhaps you don't choose the best candidate at this very moment but in the long run it is hugely beneficial. This would also be worth it in this case, but here the opposite might happen. Forcing women to be elected would probably raise the level of the average representative.

Really last point. Without quotas it's just not going to happen. There are many reasons why, from the voters to methods of vote getters, etc. Strict minimum quotas are the only way.
Roy, I think the answer is that women need to run. And, we all need to encourage women to run for office. Women get asked less to run for office than men do. More frequently women think they are not qualified to run for office. Women need to see women running for office - that usually inspires other women to run. Here is a great article in the Boston Globe:


Women, start your campaigns
"While no stereotype is true for all men or all women, social science research says women tend to be more inclusive, more easily build bridges across ideological divides, and are more in touch with their local communities - all necessary traits for the kind of leadership needed in this deeply divided country.
But it will take a big effort to get women to imagine themselves in the political ring. "

http://bit.ly/bPaB3j
I'm sorry to say this won't be solved by more women running. As long as the voters would prefer to vote for a guy, which is currently the case both with female and male voters, simply more women would lose, and waste their time instead of doing something useful. I could give examples, like Hillary losing to a far less capable candidate, but examples would just obscure the real issue here and change it to political quibbling. There is no need for political quibbling about the need for more women in politics.

If parity is to be achieved, or even something close to parity, it would have to be made into law first, like your example in Rwanda. The question is how to write such a law, and how to pass it? What would need to change in the electoral process to make something like this possible? 

Gen, one technical comment. Why the bit.ly links? There is no reason for url shorteners here. The shorteners in fact can be used by people wanting to send you to malicious sites as they don't allow you to know the site you are being sent to, and I would rarely open a shortened url which appears for no reason. In your case I would obviously trust the link, but it's better not to use them as long as one can talk freely and not muzzled into a tweet.
Join the Community
Full Name:
Your Email:
New Password:
I Am:
By registering at THINQon.com, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Discussion info
Latest Post: February 21, 2010 at 1:26 AM
Number of posts: 5
Spans 21 days
People participating

  
Searching
No results found.