Sexism in the Labour Party
Yes, Harriet Harman definitely is sexist. Not only does she think that “men cannot be left to run things on their own”, her response to criticism is just as revealing:
I didn’t actually say you can’t trust men, I basically said you get better decision-making in a team if it’s a balanced team with women and men working alongside each other.
One of the reasons I ran for deputy is because I thought there should be a woman in the leadership team and I don’t think women would want to step back to an all-male leadership team because of the things that we raise when we’re in the position to make decisions.
That’s precisely the same. You’re saying men can’t or shouldn’t be allowed to run things on their own – and that’s sexist. What if any male politician were to say that about women? Or it was said about ethic minorities or gays? There’d be uproar – and rightly so.
Ability is what must be taken into account – both in politics and banking. It may not always work – after all, neither Harman nor Brown have got their positions through ability! – but it’s better than the alternative, which is about as unequal as it is possible to get. But Harman’s not bothered about that – equality for her only matters if she’s benefiting from it.
She needs carting away in a white van. Clearly her medications are wearing off.
I’m no fan of Labour but the point she makes is a fair one. It’s not sexist, it’s merely pointing out that women must be represented in the leadership.
If these people of senior position are making decisions that affect the entire country, including millions of women, then it’s only right that women should be represented on the body. How can it be just for an all-male leadership team to make decisions that will affect women?
Ability has no place in determining the make-up of a political body. That’s just elitist. Politics is about representation and women (and every other group) need representing fairly.
Using Jamie Potter’s logic, there should also be children on the leadership team, and of course all the “usual suspects” from different races and all the rest of it.
The idea of a leader — or team of them — is not that they should be identical to those of whom they are the leaders. It is that they are the best for performing the task. That’s the only citerion of significance.
Jamie, why *must* women be represented? Why *must* any particular group be represented? Surely it is best for us all if right people for the job are doing it, not just those who tick the right boxes?
> “How can it be just for an all-male leadership team to make decisions that will affect women?”
Because they’re an all-male team due to the fact that they are the best people for the job. It could be an all-female team for all I care – so long as they’re the right two people, it doesn’t matter whether or not they have a penis!
> “Ability has no place in determining the make-up of a political body. That’s just elitist. Politics is about representation and women (and every other group) need representing fairly.”
WTF?! You can’t be serious! In that case, why do we bother with elections at all? let’s just select a hundred people at random every year who will run the country for us.
It’s not elitist to say “I want to best people for the job to do the job”. It’s simple common sense. I ask a mechnaic to fix my car because that’s what he’s good at. I don’t want someone with an representative amount of mechnical knowledge and experience to do it – I want someone who has experitise in the area.
Government is not and must not simply reflect society. To even suggest that it should is simply moronic. I don’t need representating because of my gender, sexuality, ethinicity, or anything else like that – I want the best person (who shares my views) to do it. Whether they’re male or female, straight or gay, whatever the color of their skin doesn’t matter. It’s entirely immaterial.
John, don’t forget about the criminals that Jamie’s logic requires!
(Then again, maybe we’re over-quota on them anyway…)
Edit: Due to the length of this comment and that Hannah has published it on her site, I have deleted the text. Click on the link to read it: http://www.hannahnicklin.com/2009/08/a-tuesday-afternoon-rant/
Dammit I left in the pasted bit which I was responding to. Ignore that. You get the picture. :$
I take back the comment about ability having *no* place, I was hasty to reply and didn’t think about my choice of words. The point I was getting at is that politics should not be an absolute meritocracy. Ability does of course play some role but it should not be the be all and end all.
There’s a difference between fixing a car and controlling people’s lives. Of course you want the best qualified to fix your car. But when it comes to representing me I want somebody who understands best my interests, somebody *like me*, not necessarily somebody with the best ability, this is why women ‘must’ be included in the leadership.
The problem with ability is that in today’s society, those with the most money, access to a better education, with better means etc are going to acquire that political ability leaving many people on the sidelines.
“Why do we bother with elections at all?”
Good question. Parliamentary ‘democracy’ is a pretty poor system. Choosing people through an unfair electoral system once every five years to represent tens of thousands of people, most of whose wishes they completely ignore, with little real power to hold them to account, is not democracy. But we’re stuck with it for the time being so we’ll have to make do won’t we?
So in the meantime, I want as many interests to be ‘represented’ in that system, regardless of their ability, to ensure that as many people’s concerns as possible are considered when it comes to making decisions that affect our lives.
Jamie –
I agree with you wholeheartedly, except Dear Ol’ Harriet goes and proves you wrong. She hardly came from an impoverished background and certainly didn’t lack “access to a better education” which more than likely allowed her “to acquire that political ability [which leaves] many people on the sidelines”
The trouble is you’re all debating from two ends of the same telescope: one side says a parliamentary democracy should represent the individual, the other that it should represent the country.
The history of modern democratic reform has caused our system to swing from the former towards the latter. However, that doesn’t necessarily make that swing “good”.
This is why spinters-in-the-arse liberals (note small ‘l’) such as me tend to bang on about a PR House of Lords. It’s hateful to think that representatives will be elected according to some quirk of mathematics (viz Europe), but how else can you represent **both** the individual and the country in parliament?
As for Harriet’s comments .. sorry they were sexist. May as well say “we can’t trust the nignogs to run their own affairs so we’ll ensure they have a white head of state”. She has enough education not to say that, but her judgement has let her down this time.
Chris, I agree that a PR House of Lords is the only way to go to properly rescue democracy in Britain.
[...] So this is the second day I’ve taken my finest feminist troll food out the cupboard and wandered over to the Tory enclosure. My first outing wasn’t too bad, my second however, not so fun, and I got so ranty that I forgot to cut out the beginning bit which I was responding to so it looks like I’m agreeing in an odd echo-y way in the comment section of this blog post: http://thethunderdragon.co.uk/2009/08/sexism-in-the-labour-party.html/ [...]
Good point about the criminals, though I tried not to produce a specificying list (if that’s the right term for it) but just offered one example and a catch-all for the rest. That’s my excuse, anyway!
Comments
Recent Posts
Gordon Brown, “community organiser”
Name: Gordon Brown
Job: Politician …erm, “Community Organiser”
Gordon Brown is, apparently, someone who
spent some time as a politician before becoming a community organiser.
Compared to Barack Obama …
Daily Mail readers: suffers of Ephebophobia
The Daily Mail yesterday included a list of the “top ten most bizarre phobias”. Number one in this list is
1. Ephebophobia. Fear of youths
Ha!
I thought …
The referendum question
The question set to be asked on the referendum ballot paper should the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill be passed into law (which is …
Googling the Vatican
This story
An Internet search for the Vatican through Google threw up a link to a website called www.pedofilo.com, the Italian word for paedophile, on Saturday.
The …
Twitter
Social media
Categories
Archives
Text size
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Blue Idea 2 theme by hawesWeb Productions, based on Arthemia