According to a Globe and Mail editorial yesterday, affirmative action is needed to make the Canadian Parliament reflect “inclusivity and diversity.” Why? Because there are fewer women than men. See also Janet McFarlane’s column today: “Where are the female politicians?”
I can’t help wonder: Did it never occur to the Globe’s editorial board that perhaps the majority of women really don’t want to enter public life, that maybe men and women really are “different” in terms of life “choices?” And, isn’t that what feminism is supposed to be about? Choice!
As the National Post editorial says today, notions of affirmative action are far more undemocratic than prorogation:
“The Globe cares deeply about the state of Canada’s democracy. We know this because it recently ran a front-page editorial denouncing Stephen Harper for performing an ‘underhanded manoeuvre to avoid being accountable to Parliament.’ But when it comes to the MPs who actually populate that Parliament, Globe editorialists have no problem gerrymandering the place to suit their feminist veiwpoint. To hell with the people Canadian voters actually want to elect.”
Look, I consider myself a feminist in the sense that I believe both men and women should have equal opportunities and choices in life no matter what their gender, their sexual preference, their colour, race, religion or culture. But, at the end of the day, running for political office is a personal choice — a choice that is either accepted or rejected by the voters.
No appointments. No slam dunks. No gerrymandering. Being elected by the people should be the only type of affirmative action we need.
C/P at Jack’s Newswatch & Just Politics.
Sphere: Related Content
Apparently in the Scandinavian countries women are becoming more involved in politics – both Norway and Iceland have had female presidents. Still, I can see why some women would be hesitant to get involved in politics. Take for instance a single mother working a low- or even medium-income job. Is she going to risk her future for a role that might abruptly end if her party loses the next election and where she might not be able to return to the job she left when she entered politics? I think for some women, and men for that matter, politics is a bit of a touch and go affair they might think wiser to avoid.
I agree Emilia Liz, the unpredictable nature of politics is likely one of the reasons more women don’t go into public life. There is also the issue of being away from one’s family for weeks at a time. Meaning, that women would have to enter politics either before they have children or after the children are older.
I suppose if you have a position in a university, for example, you could always go back to that job if you get voted out of office. But I think politics tend to be a hit-and-miss thing, so many women might not wish to risk everything for something that is not secure in the long run. If, as I mentioned above, you’re a single mother struggling to support a family, you might calculate the costs and benefits and figure that you’re better off in a lower-paying but stable job than in a position that might guarantee a higher salary for a few years but which has no certain future.