Here is a diehard example, ex-Alliance MP, Liz Gordon, now "Annoyed campaigner for more women MPs" demanding more women in the ranks of National.
John Key was all over the radio this morning saying that he wanted more women MPs. He could not have wanted them enough, in my view. It has always appeared to me that what John wants, John gets. His wanting is therefore a cop-out – he should have demanded more women on the National list.
But surely a National politician is a National politician period. Why is a National woman preferable to a National man? When you hate the right, why go to bat for any of them?
Liz Gordon won't be shedding any tears over the fact that I am not standing. If she was a logical person she should be.
19 comments:
I think most of National's female MPs taken on their own are worth more than the entire Labour wimmin's caucus, so to have any more of them seems unnecessary, surely?
Why assume Liz wouldn't want you to run for Act?
While I disagree with you on so so much, and I wouldn't vote for you myself, I would think that being on the Act list would be a perfectly logical place for you to be - it fits your politics and you clearly have the aptitude for Parliament.
I find it really interesting that the response of some women on the right to the concerns raised about the National list is to say left-wing women don't support right-wing women. What do you think we are doing when we say the National list (and the Act list actually) are male-dominated, which is detrimental to right-wing women in those parties?
The way I see it is that the left want quota's for MP's based on gender, race (maori) and ethnicity (chinese, indian, other asian etc) and Pacific Island, not necessarily broken down to Fijian, Tongan or Samoan.
Personally I just want the best possible MP's be the black, white or brindle, male or female.
Having her all but leap across a select committee table to attack my viewpoint and write a column describing my suggestions for welfare reform as the 'final solution' are why I don't think she would like to see me in parliament Julie.
What you don't grasp (not meant unkindly) is some non left-wing women aren't interested in selection on gender. Individualists (as opposed to collectivists, of which feminists are a sub-group) believe in the merits of individual characteristics - not group characteristics.
What you are saying is that simply being a woman is more important than the ideas they express or promote. When a political party is advocating a policy you oppose you would prefer the advocacy to come from a woman than a man?
You argue that selection is based on merit, and that therefore there is no problem with caucuses dominated by men (and I'm not talking 60/40 here, I'm talking 75/25 or worse).
Inherent in that argument is the assumption that men are more likely to have merit as political candidates than women. Really? And why?
There's <a href="http://thestandard.org.nz/the-zen-of-key/#comment-371654>a great comment over at The Standard on this</a> from someone called Puddleglum, focused on exploring this question:
"If a selection process is ‘blind’ to gender then how are we to explain persistent and significant differences in the proportion of each gender?"
And extrapolating from your experiences with Liz some years ago now to what all left-wing feminist women would think/do is hardly logical either.
Totally stuffed up that html, sorry, hopefully this will work.
Comment by Puddleglum on The Standard.
"You argue that selection is based on merit..."
No. I said it should be. I don't think selection IS currrently based on merit.
"Inherent in that argument is the assumption that men are more likely to have merit as political candidates than women..."
Not at all.
"And extrapolating from your experiences with Liz some years ago now to what all left-wing feminist women would think/do is hardly logical either."
Again I don't. But by definition left-wing feminists believe in collectivism and the state advancing their collectivist causes. A true free market, individual rights-based, small state party should present the opposite view and I still can't understand (and you didn't answer my question) why you would care whether the party contained men or women. Wouldn't neither be preferable to you?
I think we are pretty firmly talking at cross purposes.
Yes I'd prefer National and Act have no MPs, based on policy. But they do and they will in the future too. So given that reality I am going to look at how their caucuses are constructed, and how different types of people are represented.
although I think we are not quite connecting with each other's points I am still finding this an interesting discussion, thanks.
I don't have so much of a trouble with occupational groups, because clearly as National and Act are parties of free enterprise (to differing extents) it's likely a lot of people attracted to that will have business backgrounds.
But when there is such a stark gender difference then I wonder why, when I don't think there is any firm conclusive evidence that men and women differ significantly in political ability or interest in politics.
So if you don't think selection is based on merit now, what do you think it is based on? For National and Act please; I know Labour and Greens do consider consciously diversity (using different mechanisms).
Oh, I think National and ACT do attempt to select based on apparently desirable diversity (ethnicity and gender)too. ACT has, in the past, tried to attract more of the female vote and probably thinks having more female candidates or MPs will advance that goal. That's what I dislike.
For me a party should have a philosophy, describe it well, and put up policies that are consistent with that philosophy. It should attract like-minded members and voters. It shouldn't be inventing or re-inventing itself based on what it thinks has broader appeal to this or that group.
Doing it the former way means selecting candidates who best understand, explain and exemplify what the party stands for. That would be selection based on merit.
Naive of me, I know.
Ah, so what you see as current selection criteria is about people who will _win votes_, which can be a different skill/knowledge set from people who agree with the political values and will be able to advance them in a number of different fora? You would see the latter as how selection based on merit would work, have I got that correct?
In which case, forgive me while I choke a little, we agree. But then I was in the Alliance for seven years ;-)
I guess in my experience I have not noticed that men are any better at political work, or holding political values, than women. And so when men are constantly being selected in much larger numbers than women I look to the manner of selection, and the culture within that group to seek answers, because I just don't see any reason that is rooted in genuine differences between men and women that don't come back to sexism in some way.
Julie wants only parties that want to repress individual rights and control peoples lives in Parliament then...? I don't want anyone why believes that in power, no matter what configuration their junk comes in...
I struggle to understand why lefties should be so upset with National having a few less women on the ticket.. afterall, this must mean the Nats get defeated this election.. right?
JC
Julie,
1. Assume men and women are on average equally talented.
2. Assume a greater proportion of the male population are motivated to stand for Parliament than the female population.
3. Assume of those motivated to stand for Parliament a greater proportion of women decide to put their families ahead of their careers.
In this situation, a political party will have a greater number of talented men seeking list positions than it does women.
If that party then selects men and women in equal numbers, it will necessarily have put less talented women ahead of more talented men in the interests of diversity.
Lindsay, the above discussion supports the title of this blog post very well
nzclassicalliberal,
Why are you making those assumptions? Why do you think women are less likely to seek a political career than men?
Julie, is it fair to say then that assumption 2 goes to the heart of the matter? If assumption 2 were to be demonstrated would you no longer be concerned by lack of women in party lists?
Easy Julie...Women aren't as attracted or suited to the Hurley Burley of politics as Men seem to be. Its a male environment for the most part. The Women who do enter and are successful at it seem to loose their femininity and adopt masculine charismatic's...but its their choice so best of British to them...
Uggh..bloody spellchecker...
"Characteristics"
"If a selection process is ‘blind’ to gender then how are we to explain persistent and significant differences in the proportion of each gender?"
Politics is a long term game. Traditionally men do not take the primary role in raising children which leaves them with more ability to "play" the political game. Parents that choose to take the primary role in raising a family are disadvantaged in this manner.
It's not to say that men are better than women as politics or vice-versa, it's that men and women make different life choices, and it's those choices that lead to more men in parliament.
I don't see this as being a problem that needs a solution. People should not be chosen for such a position based on their gender. If gender becomes a determining factor then that implies that people are not chosen primarily based on their talents.
There is no room for prejudice in a meritocracy, and no room for "gender balancing" legislation in a supposedly free country.
Post a Comment