Women In The World Subject N°3

syl

syl

Ancient Mariner
My country (France for those who don’t already know) has always been behind on that subject.

French women got the right to vote only in 1945 whereas most of other European countries (and many others) granted woman suffrage in the first 40 years of the 20th century.
That’s the past but when it comes to consider the women who are trying to make a political carreer, I feel very ashamed.

Statistics in France :
Less than 1 mayor on 10 is a woman
There’s 12,2 % of women in the National assembly (Lower House)
There’s 16.9 % of women in the Senate (Upper House)

Have a look at the classification of women in parliaments and you’ll understand why I’m ashamed of my country : rank 84, can’t we do better ?
Those rates have increased since 1998 but they have increased faster in other countries as a result the rank of France has fallen from 41 in 1998 to 84 in 2006.

Even election quotas introduced in 2000 (the “parity law”) didn’t really change anything in France as the political parties preffer to pay financial penalties rather than respecting a balance between the number of women and men among their candidates.

Why ? Some would say it’s because women lack of interest for the political life (or worst because of their lack of competence) but it’s not? as french women are very active in associations.
I’m afraid it shows once again that men are reluctant to share their power and also that french male politician are suffering from some kind of “political schizophrenia” as on one hand they voted the "parity law" but on the other hand they transgressed it.

I also read that this tendency comes from the long history of France in excluding women from the political life : remember that French women were excluded from governing by the Salic law, that after the French Revolution they were deprived from political rights and that Napoleon gave them a statute equal to the statute of the children.

Other links :

Database of quotas for women by country

History of women suffrage
 
As a Nova Scotian, my three heads of state are women. Though all are unelected, they are wonderful leaders and perfect embodiments of the values my society holds.
(Lt. Governor Myra Freeman, Governor-General Michaëlle Jean, and HM Queen Elizabeth II)

This is one area in which I think women don't need to complain. In any democratic country, if a woman wants to run for office she is allowed to do so just as much as a man. There are very few restrictions (aside form social pressures) against women running for office. Sure, there are some troglodytes who think women shouldn't be in office just because they're women and vote accordingly, but they're a minority.

We have to frame the issue not as "Why aren't more women being elected?" but instead as "Why aren't more women running?"
Why do women feel so alienated from the political process that they do not participate? I think that for the same reason that "political females" tend to be socially progressive, most females seek to serve their ething to that...maybe not.

To repeat my first point, though: If women want to be insociety in other non-political ways, such as nurturing families and participating in grassroots community movements. (Just about every charitable organization I've ever dealt with has been run by women, and they are always the leading forces behind quality-of-life movements)

Before I get lambasted as a sexist pig, I'll freely admit that this is a reiteration of the Victorian belief in "seperate spheres" for the sexes. I don't mean to say women should be legally excluded from office, I just think that many see better ways in which they can help their community.
If they wish to hold a public office, by all means they should be entitled to seek a mandate from the people to do so.

(Let's not even open the issue of quotas for women or minority groups in public office...it's just asking for trouble)
 
I think the problem is with the establishment of political parties. In most established democracies, political parties are very old creatures. Some are newer (NDP in Canada, for instance), but the majority are ancient. The GOP in the States, for instance. I am not sure with France, but I believe it is similar.

The older an organization, generally, the more conservative it is. I'm not referring to political ideologies, but simply the elite within the organization. Sex equality is a very new idea, only 30 years old, give or take. This means that only one generation has gone through political parties since the introduction and general acceptance of this idea.

It will take another 30 years for equal number of women to infiltrate the ranks of political heirarchy. Some women will move through the ranks, right away. But for there to be any sort of parity it will take a long time. 2-3 generations...
 
Krautistan has its first woman head of government since last Autumn. During the electoral campaign, a Green has described it this way:

The conservatives are all raving about how the 68 revolution has failed, but consider this: We now have a serious chance that a woman will become head of government, and a gay will become foreign minister.

Well, the gay didn't become foreign minister, but the woman became head of state. The previous government already had many women in important minister positions, and there are female minister presidents in the Länder (states, provinces) every once in a while. During the last elections for Federal President, there was also a female candidate. So, it can be said without any concerns that women have all the same opportunities as men do in politics here.

Still, Angela Merkel's election for chancellor raised some discussion among feminists, and there was a lot of hypocrisy going on. The prime example is this one: The leading German feminist, Alice Schwarzer, once said in a TV interview that she thinks it's great that a woman has the chance of becoming chancellor, but she'd never vote for Merkel. Somtime later, she said Merkel has to become chancellor.

While I think the present government is doing a surprisingly good job for a Conservative/Social Democrat coalition, I have never liked Merkel and I never will. I don't care if she's female, male or transgender, I don't like her political ideas. I'm afraid she will do some bad things, and that's why I didn't vote for her. An interesting side note, the party I voted for actually has a female chairwoman (yes, I know, a male chairwoman would be a bit strange- but then, the FDP has one [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":p\" border=\"0\" alt=\"tongue.gif\" /]). There are people who think that voting against Merkel would be voting against a woman in head position- that is utter bullshit. If you have to vote for someone because of a specific attribute such as gender, descent (Merkel is from former East Germany) or anything else like that, that is not democratic. If a woman stands for my political opinion, she gets my vote, if she doesn't, she doesn't. I also deprived at least one gay of my vote, does that make me homophobe?
 
Perun, you sort-of contradict yourself there. You say there there was...
[!--quoteo--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] a lot of hypocrisy going on[/quote]
...because Ms. Schwarzer, a leading feminist, said she supports the idea of a female Chancellor but would not vote for Merkel.
You later point out your own fallacy:
[!--quoteo--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]If you have to vote for someone because of a specific attribute such as gender, descent (Merkel is from former East Germany) or anything else like that, that is not democratic.[/quote]
I could not agree more with this statement, but you yourself seem to criticize Ms. Schwarzer for doing so. A feminist should not have to support a specific candidate just because she's female.

Perhaps you were referring to the fact the Schwarzer seemed to switch alliegences to Merkel? I presume during the few weeks las autumn when nobody was really sure who would form the next government. Could it be that while she did not support Merkel's political views that Schwarzer realised Merkel's party had won the lelgitimate right to govern?


I forgot to add some political firsts for Canada in my previous post:
First Canadian Women Vote - 1916 (but only women who were mothers, wives, widows, daughters, or sisters of men serving in the Great War)
Total Enfranchisement - 1918
First Canadian Woman Member of Parliament - 1921
First Canadian Woman Senator - 1930
First Canadian Woman Federal Cabinet Minister - 1957
First Canadian Woman on the Supreme Court - 1982
First Canadian Woman Governor General - 1984
First Canadian Woman Federal Party Leader - 1989
First Canadian Woman Provincial Premier - 1991 (the first women to be elected to the post was in 1993)
First Canadian Woman Prime Minister - 1993 (She was not elected to the position, however)
First Canadian Woman Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - 2000
 
[!--quoteo(post=131910:date=Mar 14 2006, 01:39 PM:name=IronDuke)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(IronDuke @ Mar 14 2006, 01:39 PM) [snapback]131910[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Perhaps you were referring to the fact the Schwarzer seemed to switch alliegences to Merkel? I presume during the few weeks las autumn when nobody was really sure who would form the next government. Could it be that while she did not support Merkel's political views that Schwarzer realised Merkel's party had won the lelgitimate right to govern?[/quote]

No, what I meant was that at first, Schwarzer said that under no circumstances, she'd want Merkel to be chancellor even though she's a woman (in a fairly unrecognized and small TV talk show), but a few months later she stepped on the big stage and said Merkel has to become chancellor because she's a woman. If that's not hypocrisy, then what is?
 
[!--quoteo(post=131911:date=Mar 14 2006, 08:43 AM:name=Perun)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Perun @ Mar 14 2006, 08:43 AM) [snapback]131911[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
No, what I meant was that at first, Schwarzer said that under no circumstances, she'd want Merkel to be chancellor even though she's a woman (in a fairly unrecognized and small TV talk show), but a few months later she stepped on the big stage and said Merkel has to become chancellor because she's a woman. If that's not hypocrisy, then what is?
[/quote]

That is indeed hypocritical. I stand corrected. You didn't make that as clear as you could have in your initial post, though ::
 
[!--quoteo(post=131915:date=Mar 14 2006, 01:50 PM:name=IronDuke)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(IronDuke @ Mar 14 2006, 01:50 PM) [snapback]131915[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
That is indeed hypocritical. I stand corrected. You didn't make that as clear as you could have in your initial post, though ::
[/quote]

Blabla women rights here, blala women rights there.

I understand the victorian women making all this noise, but today's women?!
What the hell is the problem, it isn't like women can't make it to the top as well. Look in Sweden there are almost only women in the government. And still everyone goes around and say "Oh, I'm a woman and you're a man so you should go and hide somewhere 5 feet down the ground so I can have this space for myself, because you beat me 200 years ago blabla"


B/S

Down with the feminism!
 
[!--quoteo(post=132763:date=Mar 23 2006, 02:29 AM:name=The Tiger)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(The Tiger @ Mar 23 2006, 02:29 AM) [snapback]132763[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Blabla women rights here, blala women rights there.

I understand the victorian women making all this noise, but today's women?!
What the hell is the problem, it isn't like women can't make it to the top as well. Look in Sweden there are almost only women in the government. And still everyone goes around and say "Oh, I'm a woman and you're a man so you should go and hide somewhere 5 feet down the ground so I can have this space for myself, because you beat me 200 years ago blabla"
B/S

Down with the feminism!
[/quote]

If you had bothered to follow the link syl provided, you'd have found that women make up 45.3% of parliamentarians in Sweden (commendable - the 2nd highest in the world!!!) This means that 54.7% (more than enough needed to...say...elect a US president) of the parliamentarians are men. Stop whining.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top