Where have all the women gone?
When Cameron came to power in the Conservative party he promised a 30% female cabinet should he become PM. As anyone who has seen today’s Times can see, this seems rather unlikely.
As their front page points out, the vast majority of the top team are male. Women aren’t getting promoted and the candidates not yet selected from the infamous A-List are disproportionately female.
Why? Well we know the party has different ideas to Labour of women’s promotion; they don’t do all-women shortlists (which I am personally against actually but at least they’re getting the women in) and they don’t do women’s officers (something I am completely for). Women make up 51% of the population, 39.5% of their members, 16% of their front bench team and 8.7% of their MPS. Only 21% of their PPCs are female and so it’s not going to change any time soon either.
Why aren’t women getting ahead? Dave himself went to an all-boys school and hung out with the all-boy Bullingdon club rather a lot, maybe he thinks the lack of women is normal. Maybe he just doesn’t notice their absence. Maybe he’s just not that bothered… or is it unfair to blame him, is there an underlying problem deeply rooted in the party that needs to be sorted out?
Birmingham University Labour Students
John Ritchie
Brigidjones
daveborland
dorameredith
bensemens
chrisblewitt
oliverjackson
maxattacks
joshualt
suzannahrobinson
kohalloran
jakelambertonline
smurphy2010
labourluke
bulsonline
Guardian Unlimited
The problem starts in primary school. Too much attention is focused on people in their 30s+. You can see the divide starting at a very early age. If we want to change the gender pay gap etc. then we need to adjust the way schools work.
In the Conservative Party its about individual merit. Weve always been the party to encourage that. Thats why it was a woman who became our leader and a woman who became our Prime Minister. How many women leaders have Labour had? are they incpapable of doing the top job?
Camerons desire to see a “30% female cabinet” is im sure his ideal aim, but he, unlike his Labour counterparts, will not promote them merely because they are women. You have to prove yourself in the Conservative Party and your gender, ethnicity, sexuality doesnt even come in to it. After all it shouldnt all be about ticking the boxes. It should be about who is right for the job.
So the reason the Tories aren’t selecting women is there aren’t any good enough?
Having taken a look at some of your male selectees I find this hard to believe. Or is it that brilliant women know better than to join the Tories?
“Or is it that brilliant women know better than to join the Tories?”
haha very clever. No Brigid its not that its just that perhaps there are other people, who arent women, better for the job. Besides there is something quite telling about this piece:
“When Cameron came to power in the Conservative party he promised a 30% female cabinet should he become PM.”
So hes PM now is he? Youre either accepting hes going to be the next Prime Minister and claiming his incoming administration wont have any MP’s or it was a freudian slip. You’d be right in one sense, he is going to be the next Prime Minister and his team will be predominantly male.
However and it is a big however, once in power then he may well make good his promise. The point is Cameron doesnt have to do anything atm and I find it distasteful to say the least to take lessons in honest and ‘keeping ones promises’ from a party that has broken more promises than theyve had hot dinners and u-turned on their own manifesto.
No dear. We wont take criticsm from the Labour party about a ‘mistake’ that has yet to be made when Labour are making and have made far more of their own.
Women are 51% of the population? We need a cull!
I’m sure there are other such problems too, on both sides (race, enthicity etc etc). So the choice is either you let a meritocracy run its course or you sway the system with positive discrimination. I know which option I prefer.
Well. Bloody. Said.
I have seen first hand the results of positive discrimination and it ends up with resentment and, more often than not, poorer results. I much prefer a meritocracy and any woman with any self-respect would, I am sure, want to be selected based on merit, not gender. Mo-one would want to start their political career with that legacy.
Personally, I believe this country needs the very best, irrespective of their race, gender or sexuality. I value my vote and I can assure our leaders that I for one, will vote based on the best candidate and/or the party that shares most of my values, I will never be persuaded to vote based on gender.
eeek typo:
my second previous comment:
“So hes PM now is he? Youre either accepting hes going to be the next Prime Minister and claiming his incoming administration wont have any MP’s”
That should be
“So hes PM now is he? Youre either accepting hes going to be the next Prime Minister and claiming his incoming administration wont have many women MP’s in his cabinet…”
Personnaly I’m not that wowed by any party’s selection procedure. I’ve seen MPs of all major parties and thought: ‘how the hell did he/she get there?’.
“No Brigid its not that its just that perhaps there are other people, who arent women, better for the job.”
and what women just never happen to have been good enough? pull the other one you disgusting misogynist
How disgusting and sexist. I suppose black people aren’t represented proportionately because they aren’t good enough either? Vile pigs.
Quote from the Shadow Minister for Women Theresa May: “I think David’s done very well in the number of women he’s got in the Shadow Cabinet.” Well, I don’t about that…
She also says they’ve had the first black woman selected as a Conservative candidate (I think she means as a MP candidate), the first black, female MP to be elected was actually in 1987, twenty two years ago. But, then again, there have only ever been three black, female MP’s altogether in the entire history of British politics, which is quite shocking, though all were Labour. Surely there must have been another capable, black female Conservative Party that could have taken a seat in more than two decades? Of course the Conservative Party’s base support wouldn’t have liked that.
The Fawcett Society’s 2007 estimates say that, at the current rate of change, it will be three hundred years before parliament reflects the ethnic and gender composition of the country.
Dawn Butler put forwards an early daily motion on that issue. I managed to find it and it’s dated 23/05/2007. Unfortunately only 40 MPs signed it: 27 Labour, 11 Liberal Democrats, 2 Social Democratic and Labour Party and zero Conservative.
haha when all else fails call in the fembots to rant and rave. Got any virtual bras to burn?
I’m sorry? What?
“haha when all else fails call in the fembots to rant and rave. Got any virtual bras to burn?”
Dan,
Shame on you!
Your comments prove what a disgraceful sexist you must be, and that the Conservative Party are the nasty old boys club they always have been and will always continue to be.
They have never and will never deliver for women in this country, voting time and time again against women’s rights to choose, against lesbian women’s rights as parents and making hideous statements regarding equal pay.
Don’t you understand that women are an oppressed MAJORITY in society? We don’t have equal access to power that men enjoy, and that’s why its so important we are represented in political parties.
I think todays article in the Times and your despicable comments about fembots and bra burning prove that Tory sexism still lives and breathes in 2009!
Ok, for all this ranting and raving, I’m still not convinced I’ve heard a decent enough solution to the problem. There is a gender imbalance in politics, but how can this be resolved without going down the positive discrimination route which is just as unfair, imbalanced and patronising?
Yes, women can be given the opportunities to compete for positions, say, within the cabinet, but, at the end of the day surely the decision should be about who is best suited for the role irrespective of gender? It cannot be a simple case of appointing more women, simply because this is equally discriminatory.
Dan that is really disappointing, and I would venture that members of your own Party, and certainly BUCF would be ashamed that you are posting such outdated statements about people who believe that women should have equal political rights to men- not a big ask and definately not contraversial…
It’s certainly not based on merit at the moment. After the election in 2001, compared to the rest of the world, by 2003 in terms of the proportion of female MP’s, Britain has actually fallen from 33rd place to 55th place with just 18%. Sweden was 1st in the world with 45% of it’s MPs being female, then came Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Norway. What are they doing that we are not I wonder? We’re behind many developing countries too, like Cuba, Mozambique, Namibia and South Africa for example.
All these stats are from this web page: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-lags-poor-nations-in-number-of-female-mps-582228.html and though I don’t know if things changed in the 2005 election, I’d still like to highlight one particular paragraph:
“The report’s author, Mary-Ann Stephenson, said the number of women MPs had fallen in the UK mainly because of inaction on the issue by the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives. A quarter of Labour’s MPs are women, and that number is likely to rise at the next election with the re-introduction of all-women shortlists, which were dropped at the 2001 election after a legal ruling. Eleven per cent of Liberal Democrat MPs are women, and 8.5 per cent of Conservatives. Ms Stephenson’s report will say that quotas are indisputably the most effective short-term method of increasing women’s representation.”
Anyway I’d suggest reading the article the whole way through.
I agree it should be based on personal merit alone, regardless of gender or anything else (unless it prevents the job being done of course), but this isn’t just going to happen and hopefully, with quotas, the proportion of women can be raised and more female role models in Parliament will encourage women to run for election and, perhaps along with other factors, eventually the proportion will stay at a higher level naturally (ie without quotas) based on merit alone.
Sweet Jesus Dan, I have a feeling you’re going to live to regret some of your posts on here some day…
Well thanks for actually answering a question posed in one of my posts: you’ve decided it’s not Dave or the party’s fault women don’t get through, but women’s. Fabulous.
Luke and Dan, if you truely belive the political selection process is a meritocracy, the only way you can explain the lack of women MPs is that women aren’t as worthy of men as being MPs. Do you believe this? Or are women perhaps equally capable of men but deterred from standing/prevented from getting selected by other, sometimes darker forces?
Let me try and put the reason for representation into perspective. Let’s take some women you know: me, Dora, Pippa, Emma O’Dwyer, your Laura Blyth and Sahar, Hollie Jones and, oh why not, your mum. Two of us are going to get beaten up by a partner, three of us are going to get sexually assaulted or raped at some point in our lives. Maybe some of us already have been! Which ones do you think it will be? Go on, guess! Almost all of us are going to earn less than you, who do you think will be the lucky ones?
Feminism’s not so funny when you think about it like that. It’s really, deadly serious. Women need representation, we need our issues brought to the table, we need to be taken seriously in society and become true equals. You can’t just leave it to sort itself out, it’s not going to work. The entirity of human history serves to prove that. And you can’t just trust the men to represent women on their own; because much as I would love to believe an all male parliament could create an equal society, again, history proves otherwise.
This is why I am concerned about the make up of the Tory front bench and this is why I disagree with you that leaving the situation alone is going to sort it out. It’s not. And it’s far too urgent for that.
I hope that gives you some food for thought…
Lots of love,
Fembot x
solidarity comrade!xx
You misunderstand me. The ‘fembots/bra burners’ comment was aimed at ‘emod’ and ‘millicent’ whoever the hell they are as I dont recognise them as regular commentators on the blog. Forgive me but I was a little miffed at being labelled “you disgusting misogynist”, sexist and oh yes vile pig, for merely saying I believe in meritocracy rather than all this quota malarkey.
So if youd look at the situation objectively the insults were not initiated by me, I was merely responding in kind to some very weak minded individuals who presented no concrete arguments and who prefered to resort to verbal abuse against anyone who dared disagree with them. They are the ones that give the rest of you a bad name.
I reiterate I am 100% behind womens rights. I do believe that they should be better represented but I do not neccessarily believe that that requires you to meet ‘quotas’. Our energies should be focused on encouraging women to get involved in politics through programmes and education rather than forcing parties to meet set quotas. Furthermore I believe that the barrier to women is not as great as some make out. How did Thatcher manage to lead such an establishment party like the Tories in the 1970s?
Of couse she came up against opposition but it was through her own hard work and hard headedness that she manged to get to the top and hold on to it. That was because she believed in meritocracy. She wanted to be selected for her merit as an individual and not for her sex. If you cant even accept that then your whole argument is undermined. She was a tough woman, going up against even tougher opposition but the means through her to aspire by her own efforts were there.
She could have done what most feminists do and ranted and raved about how men are, I quote, ‘disgussting misogynist pigs” (views which alienate mainstream society) or she could get out there and do something about it. Prove herself in ‘a mans world’. She and so many others, even on your own benches, have proved themselves as leaders in their respective fields.
Of course the number of men and women in top jobs is disproportionate but Rome wasnt built in a day. It took a long time for women to get the rights they now enjoy and in my view an inalienable right to, but the situation is nowhere near as bad as some of you make out. I also think you make out as if men have it easy.
Do you think men just walk in to these top jobs?! We have to go through hardship aswell you know. Sometimes I feel as if all the onus is on women about how hard they have it with little if any regard to what men have to go through and what stereotypes they have to conform to.
Women have it better than they ever have had it and of course in certain areas more needs to be done. But I tell you without a shadow of a doubt that the feminist cause is not in any way shape or form help by radicals. So in sum I apologise if some of the more moderates amongst you believed that ‘fembot’ remark was made at everyone who considers themselves a feminist, it wasnt.
It was a half hearted, flippant response to abusive commentary directed at me and anyone else who dared to have the audacity to suggest that a meritocracy was the way forward.
you don’t recognise new posters, so it is ok to bully them?
and their responses may have been angry, but you essentially denied that women have the ability to be selected for mps and/or the shadow cabinet.
That is not true, and all though gender quotas may not be your preffered solution, and that is fine, something must be done to increase women’s representation in parliament and elsewhere
and “most feminists?” I’m sorry but when do you ever hear me shout “disgusting misogynist pigs” at you when I don’t agree with you on gender equality issues? I think you are a bit out of touch to what feminists are these days…
oh i’m very sorry for confusing you Dan. ‘Emod’ is the well known nickname of the marvellous feminista Emma O’Dwyer.
and quotas aside.
You have used my accurate description of your good selves comments to avoid answering that you seem to assert that even without quotas women are simply not good enough now?
Oh and let’s face it if anyone is going to be building a Rome for women it aint gonna be the Tories is it.
You also failed to address the point that was made that the conservatives voting record shows they vote against womens rights?
lots of love,
Fembot2 x x
Good god. The dillusions of the Labour party know no bounds. Again review the comments and see who ‘bullied’ who first ‘HJ’. Although Id say bullied is a rather strong word to use on both counts. If I were the ‘vile pig’ im accused of being Id say at this point that you were being a typical woman: drama Queen.
Incidently I did not deny that women “have the ability to be selected for mps and/or the shadow cabinet”. I emphasised the fact that as it stands more men occupy the top position because maybe just maybe they were better candidates for the job in question. Nothing to do with sex. That isnt to say there arent women out there who arent capable of doing the job its just maybe they havent surfaced ye or maybe the ones on offer didnt want the jobs or arent up to the mark. There is a whole host of practical reasons as to why they don’t occupy the top ranks rather than this male conspiracy crap that keeps being spouted.
This isnt to say all women are ‘useless’ or unfit for office. Youre putting words in my mouth. Im saying that maybe the powers that be in ALL parties decided that certain roles would be best filled by men and that is their perogative to do so. If a woman wants the top job in the Tory party there is nothing to stop her. Dont forget we had our first woman leader over 30 years ago. What about your good selves?
But do you know what? Thatcher wasnt selected because she was a woman. She was selected because she was the best candidate for the job and dint use her gender as an excuse. Perhaps more feminists should take a leaf out of her book. A woman who proved that your gender only holds you back if you let it.
“I emphasised the fact that as it stands more men occupy the top position because maybe just maybe they were better candidates for the job in question.”
then
“This isnt to say all women are ‘useless’ or unfit for office. Youre putting words in my mouth”
No you’re quite right. You didn’t say all women were useless, just that there were more suitable men than women in existance.
Men are at the top. So men have to promote women if they are going to get to the top too. Why don’t they promote women? Maybe they subconsciously see women differenlty, maybe they feel more comfortable around other men, maybe there aren’t any women candidates for them to pick.
Why may there not be enough women to pick from? Society still expects women to look after the kids, the elderly parents, biology forces women to have children. Male working culture excludes women too. And womens sexuality can present a problem and stop women from being as assertive as they might have been, for fear of giving men the wrong impression. Women are held to different standards than men.
I’m going ot stop now as this could easily be a book… expect more blogs on this soon.
And Thatcher? One woman who got to the top by acting like a man? Frickin’ great legacy that was looking at your shadow cabinet.
Some women are ‘victims of their own condition’. For example in my family all the women have been formidable matriachs lol… however whilst they have always been ambitious and succeeded in their respective career tracks, they have always chosen to be mothers and grandmothers first and foremost. Their career as far as they were concerned should never compromise their family life.
Other women are career minded and family doesnt even enter their minds meaning our society becomes more characterised by ‘absent mothers and tv dinners’. Other women miraculously combine both family and career while others chose to be homemakers. I support a womans right to choose but I think youll find a majority of mothers are more than prepared to “Look after the kids, the elderly parents etc” (which you seem to imply is a bad thing) as opposed to persuing a high profile career.
I love it how your excuse for Thatcher is she only got to the top by ‘acting like a man’. Rubbish. She got to the top of a highly competitive career track by rising to the challenge and fighting for a position others wished to take from her. Whatever career track you are in, man or woman if you get to the top you will get fierce competition. You may well have to act more masculine to do so but such is life. That is not unique to women either. Some men arent massively masculine. Im certainly not however I dare suspect I too will have to act tougher to get to the top because life at the top is cut throat.
What you and this post proposes is changing the very essence of human nature: competition and survival of the fittest. You cant do that which is why all this is hot air.
If competition and survival of the fittest means we are only represented by men than yes that does need to be challenged, otherwise womens needs won’t go recognised and we’ll still get a shit deal in society!
Of course thatcher didn’t ONLY rise by being manly. But she was.
If men shared child rearing responsibilities more equally then that issue would be sorted out… you talk about absent mothers and tv dinners, why shouldn’t dad be around for the kids equally and do his share of the cooking?
I can’t believe i’m actually having this argument with a grown adult as if its new ideas we’re debating.
I dont deny that at all Brigid. But what I am trying to get at is women DO currently have the opportunity to get to the top. Thatcher proved that 30 years ago although you keep dismissing it as her being ‘too manly’. So what if she was? Maybe other women should take a leaf out of her book. Stop using your gender as an excuse and rise to the top on your own merit not because your employer has been coerced in to hiring you to meet a quota. If I was a woman Id want to be selected for my own personal skill and ability to do the job not because my employer doesnt want ‘to look bad’.
Perhaps more importantly, something that we can actualy have a hope of changing; what do you think to your governments defeat over the Gurkhas? When will it dawn on you that your MP’s, bar 28, voted for legislation that is tantmount to condemning people that have lived and died for this country to poverty, deprivation and even death. Even the Liberals and the Tories could come together for this one.
There’s also a case for saying that surely you guys are falling into the trap of stereotyping women too (just as Dan was chastised for). Brij – yes, women do do the whole family thing, but it is too much of a generalisation to suggest that men simply don’t? There are plenty of fathers out there who do stay at home and look after the kids. It isn’t so completely black and white now is it?
I also think politics is slightly atypical of society more generally. There are more working women now more willing than ever before to choose their careers over any family life. What needs to be changed, I would suggest is female attitudes (as well as male attitudes, I agree). I think too many women in society are comfortable filling roles of secretaries/ nurses/ teachers etc etc. This needs to be changed. It isn’t just male attitudes towards women. This has to be a continual procedure, and I think it is (women’s representation in the workplace now is more favourable to 50 years ago for example).
The views on here are atypical too, I would venture a suggestion that there are more young women in Britain who would aspire to be hairdressers/models etc than take up careers in politics. Again, there is a bigger issue about how women (in general) perceive themselves, as well as how men perceive them.
I maintain my view that positive discrimination is not a solution to any problem. If that is the chosen solution then it harks of counter-productive short-term-ism coupled with a complete failure to understand the bigger problems.
‘I would venture a suggestion that there are more young women in Britain who would aspire to be hairdressers/models etc than take up careers in politics’
My sister wants to be a pathologist, if this thread goes on much longer I wager that might be useful.
Before I post an argument, I’ve been wondering for a while, not just pertaining to this blog but to many different ones: Aren’t you a bit too right wing for the Conservative Party, Dan?
‘I think too many women in society are comfortable filling roles of secretaries/ nurses/ teachers etc etc’
My mother is the principal of a large secondary school, do you think that is comfortable? It is outrageous to claim that any sort of professional job is some how easy and within the comfort zone for anyone without knowing their situation first.
Luke D, I really hope that your views are not completely representative of the tory party as a whole, and you are just blindly backing up Dan. Because otherwise, women are going to have a hard time of it if you get in power next time.
“Aren’t you a bit too right wing for the Conservative Party, Dan?”
I am no more ‘too right wing’ for the Conservative party than you lot are ‘too left’ for New Labour. Do I always tow party line? No, Do I always agree with everything they do? No. But I am far more closely aligned with them than any other party. I, like many Tory supporters, am more right wing than the current administration of the party and I make no apology for it. But I still know the difference between a Labour government and a Conservative one.
And Chris I love this:
“women are going to have a hard time of it if you get in power next time”
SUCH. DRAMA. So I suppose we are going to produce legislation that chains women back to the beds and kitchens are we? Don’t be so ridiculous. Cameron has said that womens representation will be a priority under the next Conservative government and I believe him. We do believe that women are just as capable as men and have never denied it (although weve been verbally assaulted more times than I can remember for supposedly doing so) But we arent going to force women to get involved in politics like you and your nany state lot telling people what they should and shouldnt do.
All I am trying to get across, as Luke D is, is that women have the right to choose their own careers and a majority choose to be home makers, hairdressers, nurses etc. It is their choice to do so. You will find a majority of women are perfectly happy to leave ‘the politics’ to the men. The ones that arent have every right and opportunity to get involved. But for many women a politicial career is not one that attracts them in the slightest. That is not because the ‘male establishement’ is holding them back its purely a choice: THEY DONT WANT TO.
As Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Jay, Edwina Currie, Theresa May, Sayeeda Warsi, Margaret Beckett, Jacqui Smith, Ruth Kelly, Barbara Castle, Betty Boothroyd, Harriet Harman, Shirley Williams and god knows how many other women have shown over the decades there is NOTHING to stop women getting to the top other than the fact that they choose not to. They proved that personal merit matters more than gender. They got to the top through their own efforts not not through positive discrimination.
“That is not because the ‘male establishement’ is holding them back its purely a choice: THEY DONT WANT TO.
“…there is NOTHING to stop women getting to the top other than the fact that they choose not to.”
Really, I mean good god, what a thoroughly objectionable thing to say. I guess, being a Tory, you’re able to do the mental backflips to believe that sexism has NOTHING (your capitalisation) to do with disproportionate gender divide at the top, because, y’know, you can just state axiomatically that sexism isn’t a problem; therefore the ratio of women to men at the top precisely reflects the proportion that *want* to be there because, again, you say so.
Beyond that you’ve got your ludicrous distortion of your opponents’ position; people bring up the disproportionate gender distribution in low paid jobs as a problem and you say “but they’ve got a RIGHT to do those jobs!” Well no shit, genius, find somebody who said otherwise.
Of course you’ve got the inevitable mention of the “nany state” which I guess is Tory code for any kind of state intervention to alleviate social inequality. And the standard Tory red-herring tactic: saying “..they have every right and opportunity to get involved” when somebody points out a reason why a particular group *aren’t able* to get involved as easily (hint: a meritocracy is only a meritocracy if things that have nothing to do with merit are irrelevant, like, I dunno, gender)
I might come to regret this post as being a little too vituperative, but really, you’re doing a better job than I ever could of parodying the callous, privilege-soaked crypto-social-darwinism I picture when I think of Tory ideology. Problem is, you’re serious. Deny any problem exists and thus everybody is where they are out of choice. We’re a meritocracy because I say we’re a meritocracy. I should thank you I guess, whenever I get squeamish over being in Labour, over the war or theocratisation of schools, I can read your post and remind myself what the opposition’s like. Cheers.
God damn you! You spelt “nanny” wrong! It has two n’s!! Not one!!!
Shame!
Blimey Chris, are you naturally stupid, or do you practice?
I wasn’t suggesting for a minute that any of the jobs are comfortable in terms of actually doing the job. My point was that it is still more likely that women enter those sorts of career paths, as opposed to politics. These are the sorts of roles that women have traditionally filled (as opposed to political roles, or jobs on the stock exchange, or taxi drivers, or builders, or any other job that is not traditionally filled by women). Hence why I was making the point (which was ignored by the way) about female attitudes.
I get that all the people on here are educated, clever people. But does that map onto Britain as a wider whole? I’m not so sure it does. Whilst there are many many women who do occupy higher powered roles in society (your mum is obviously a prime example), there are countless others (who, I would suggest, outnumber the first group) who do not have such aspirations and instead conform to a more stereotypical view of women and the jobs that women have traditionally done.
I don’t “blindly” follow either. I barely know Dan (I may have met him once). I am not a member of CF, or any other Conservative party organisations. I form my own opinions, and am happy to do so. So don’t judge me like that, after all, it is “outrageous to claim…without knowing their situation first” is it not?
I never ever knew the majority of women were home makers, hairdressers and nurses. I thought that many, although not MPs, did jobs that didn’t necessarily conform to 1950s gender stereotpyes.
Jesus, if the majority of all women were hairdressers and nurses what would us gay men do. We’d have no career opportunities at all.
Alex – I was working from this information from 2008: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1654
I get that this shows the problems that women have, and I have not ever denied these problems. Instead I’m trying to find explanations for the problems, which I believe extends beyond simply ‘blaming men’.
Oh, I was refering to Dan. You must have posted yours as I was typing
‘Whilst there are many many women who do occupy higher powered roles in society (your mum is obviously a prime example), there are countless others (who, I would suggest, outnumber the first group) who do not have such aspirations and instead conform to a more stereotypical view of women and the jobs that women have traditionally done.’
Sorry, I don’t understand your point. Are you criticizing people for not having high enough aspirations for your liking?
People should be able to choose their own career paths and not have idiots like you judging them for it. We should support anyone in our society who wants to achieve highly, but equally there are people in the world who do not see success in the same way you do, be it academic or financial.
Right Chris, all you’ve done is repeat what Dan said earlier. Read back and check.
I’m not criticising anyone. I’m trying to explain why there is such a discrepancy between the two sexes. As I said, it isn’t as simple as blaming men, or the Conservatives, or any other party.
On the jobs.
Girls leaving school often get encouraged into stereotypical roles, or go into them because that’s what their parents want them to do, or think that’s what they’re capable of and should stick to it, or are just subconsciously influenced by seeing tons of women go one way and follow. And those jobs, as we can see from the stats Luke has researched, are generally lower skill and lower pay. Meaning a less comfortable life and often not reaching full potential, often not because they consciously chose to but because they didn’t really realise there was much alternative.
On being female holding you back:
I’m going to do a longer blog about being a woman in a male environment. I’m hoping you’ll read it and maybe start to understand what I mean. Hopefully I’ll have time to write it later.
You talk allot of “meritocracy”how can this be effective in a sphere of our society like the government that so blatantly supports male dominated standards? Surely you must accept that meritocracy in British politics can only support and perpetuate a male dominated system.
There are other options and proposals to positive discrimination; however they are probably not even worth mentioning here if you don’t accept that there are elements in society especially within certain spheres that are oppressive.
I wish BrigidJones success in Illustrating to you some models of oppression.
Ed Bauer that is the most sensisble thing i have ever heard you say.
I agree, although technically neither of us heard him say anything, as this conversation is, as far as one is aware, typed and though this is the first time I’ve “heard” him speak my original point is still valid…whatever that was…ah yes, yes I agree.
“I make no apology”
Dan! You should have entered for the Young Tory of Year!
Similarly “I make no apology”
Many a Conservative party member back in the day
hmm. this is news to me
Thread necromancy? Tut tut.
Me Dad still calls us “Tory Boy”, despite the fact that I’ve not been a Tory since February 2006.
Hehe, I’ve always loved that sketch though