Stephane Dion has announced his pledge to field 103 female candidates in the next federal election. Everyone seems to be celebrating this promise; declaring that women finally are getting the equality in politics that has long been due to us.
However, I am left wondering what this ‘pledge’ really means. I acknowledge that women are underrepresented when it comes to sitting parliamentarians at both the provincial and federal levels; but when Dion states that he is willing to do whatever it takes to get 103 women as candidates for this party in the next election I can not help but feel slightly offended.
Why do women need this pledge to be declared equal to men? Are we incapable of becoming more politically involved and running for office without the party giving us special treatment? I am mortified to think that before this that we were unable to.
It is a huge, difficult decision to run for public office, one that has many consequences and demands once made. In my riding, I know of many women that are more then qualified to run and clean Nicholson’s clock. However, they have made the personal choice (one that I respect) to not run. Yet I know come election time they will be at the campaign office on the phone, organizing and dedicating countless hours towards defeating our Conservative Member of Parliament.
When somebody considers running for public office they think of the demands that it will place on their life, the time it will take away from family, and a slew of other things. Gender rarely factors into the equation of determining whether or not one will run.
Maybe, I am wrong. I don’t believe I am, but I feel that as women we do not need this special pledge to protect us and help us get elected. As a Liberal young woman I don’t particularly care whether or not our next candidate in Niagara Falls is a women or yet another man. I just want the person who stands the best chance of defeating Rob Nicholson when the election comes. Because I know that there will be an army of women and men behind them fighting to get that person elected!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Hi there,
There are lots of reasons why women have not been well represented in politics. There is discrimination that makes it more difficult for them to get started, to get financial backing, and to get ahead. There is the fact that they tend not to have a spouse who can help out. For part of their lives, there are the demands of child-rearing. There is social conditioning that makes many women less ambitious, confident, or assertive. And so on.
There are also lots of reasons why we would be better off as a party and a country if we increased the parity of sexes in parliament. There is a snowball effect: having more women MPs would reduce the discrimination that stops other women from being able to run. There are (arguably) benefits in the difference of approach that many women have. Female politicians are role models for young girls and might inspire them to do all sorts of things. And so on.
It's good to have short term goals in mind (winning your riding) but it's just as important to have long term vision.
I understand that there are the biased, outdated opinions as the little lady belongs in the kitchen. But we have come a long way. Women have struggled and succeeded in advancing in the Corporate, Public and all other sectors and professions. They never needed somebody saying 'hey we should allow her to do this.' They went to school, worked hard and achieved success and broke down the barriers.
As a young liberal woman I do look up to somebody like Rudy Dhalla who is intelligent and successful. But she successfully ran and won and didn't need this pledge to help her. She is a role model for me and many of my female friends she inspires us and hopefully some of us will make that decision to run some day when we are ready.
Women already play a huge role in politics; we are very well represented at the grassroots level. The argument that women are some how raised to be more complacent then men is folly. I was raised in a household that despised politicians and the political process. However, ever since I was 11 I have been obsessed with politics. Most children today are educated and encouraged to be leaders in their chosen field of occupation. Many young people are postponing getting married and having children in favour of their careers.
The pledge is a leadership campaign promise, and that Dion is willing to walk the talk on his promise to increase the number of Liberal women MPs says something meaningful about his leadership. Already empowered women Liberal MPs have asked this of Dion, and he has responded willingly and respectfully.
And we need this quota-like presure if we we wish to really change things significantly because, as we all know, systemic discrimination against women in politics still exists in a variety of forms. In many respects, the post-feminist myth is just that. Better to have a good candidate regardless of gender, true, but, as Dion knows, gender is ALWAYS on the table, and he also knows good women candidates are out there.
See my post on our blog:
http://murphyspoint.blogspot.com/2006/12/women-mps-dion-walks-talk.html
"In other words, the weak ridings will be targeted for potential female candidates while freed-up safe ridings will be reserved for star women candidates. All this makes perfect pragmatic sense if we actually want to push up the ratio of potential women MPs. Some Liberals (and of course Liberal opponents) are perforce grumbling, saying it isn't really democratic to foreground women candidates. "
So, we are going to give women ridings that essentially have not been winnable before by other candidates (assumingly male candidates). This strikes me as still discriminatory. Sure, in the short term you will have more women 'candidates' but how will running women as lame ducks in ridings that have sitting conservative, ndp or bloc MP's translate to securing women MP's. We are walking a very slippery slope here. Give ridings to women that have little to no chance to win them and saving the established ridings for the 'star' candidates or our token women candidates. I understand that this is being done in good faith but still you have a man telling a woman that unless we give you the opportunity to run you wouldn't have a chance. It is insulting to those women MP's like Belinda Stronach, Rudy Dhalla, Albina Guarnieri, Hedy Fry, Bonnie Brown, Brenda Chamberlain, Carolyn Bennett, Colleen Beaumier, Diane Marleau, Judy Sgro, Karen Redman, Maria Minna, Susan Barnes, and Susan Kadis. What message does it send to young women when they see that women that presumably would not have won a nomination without being parachuted in. I will never say that we shouldn't have more women candidates. But as those women listed above serve as an example for me they will serve as an example for all and encourage young girls to dream of becoming the next Belinda or Ruby!
Interesting points by all of you. As you all know, I am a big fan of the female candidate. I, like Wild at Heart don't want to be sacrificing ridings to fulfill a mandate. There are many strong female candidates in many winnable ridings, however, we must tap into those women and encourage them to run.
We can't just randomly take the first female candidate to throw her name in the ring. Even for male candidates, the issue remains the same. Our goals must be to field the strongest possible candidates in each riding to unseat the opposition encumbants.
That's what are one true aim should be. I laud Mr. Dion in his efforts. There was already a committee in place 8 months ago in Ontario that has actively been seeking female candidates in the various ridings. This will assist in Mr. Dion's enterprise hopefully.
Anyway, I urge all of you to think of women across this land that should be encouraged to run. We have some great ones running nexst election... Paddy Torsney, Marva Wisdom, Liza Frulla, Heather Carter, hopefully Meredith Caplan and the list goes on.
Anyway,
Happy Holiday
The What Do I Know Grit
Post a Comment