Now that we have Grant Robertson as the international cheerleader for the gay community (which is absolutely brilliant) Labour has moved onto ‘fixing’ the female numbers in their caucus. Last week the party came out with a plan to raise the number of women in their caucus to 45% in the next election; aiming for 50% by 2017.
Their proposal also stated that in some electorates the party may choose to disallow male candidates leading to the media fondly referring to this scheme as the ‘man ban.’ At a time when Labour should seriously be gearing up for the coming year of election promises and campaign trails, dealing with serious and pressing issues such as the education, healthcare and economic policies, we have the party addressing an issue which, while important in principle, is rather low on the bucket list. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for the equality of the sexes – equal pay, equal opportunities, equal representation. I just do not believe that women need to meet a quota.
We’ve been hearing all week why most of the country finds ‘the plan’ to be absolute codswallop. Largely, I tend to agree. I would even go as far as saying that I find the plan insulting to my gender. It insinuates that the only way a woman could win in an electorate is if there was no male competition.
Women need to be represented in parliament on our own terms, when and how we want to be. The man ban infers that women would only for female candidates; that men are voted in purely because of the lack of an alternative. It fails to identify that MPs are ideally voted in on their party affiliation as well as their political beliefs,and promises to the electorate – be they male or female – it doesn’t make all that much different to a conscientious voter. All the practicalities of the plan do is reduce women to their status in the 50s when they usually lived in the kitchen and had only just started to work.
Now that I have gotten my little rant out of the way, I want to address the issue that Labour is trying to tackle. The basic principle of the argument is not at all difficult to defend, and endorse. Women make up approximately 50% of the New Zealand population and therefore should be represented to at least that degree in parliament. At this point I could delve into the plethora of scientific research that shows that women are different to men and we need them in authority positions because of their different biological skills and inherent ways of thinking.
All that argument will do however, is distract us from the real issue of why people are elected into government – for their views, beliefs and promises not biology.
What ‘the plan’ does not take into consideration however it that, as I mentioned above, many women are perfectly happy being represented by a member of the opposite sex with similar views to themselves, and truly do not see the need for gender to define the MP.
This is in line with the arguments in opposition to the proposed American Equal Rights Amendment which seeks to state that equality of right will not be denied on the basis of sex. The amendment, while it is seen by some as furthering gender equality, can be seen as demoting women to needing a separate amendment distinguishing them from a citizen under the US Constitution.
Where the Constitution refers to a citizen, the word should, and does include women, making the need for such an amendment redundant. Even beyond all my previous arguments what is arguably the worst part aspect of the plan is that it requires a quota. In nations where women are oppressed, and degraded, a quota needs to be used to fight such subjugation by making it lawful to require a certain number of female representations.
In a country like New Zealand however, where we often, in our enthusiasm for equality, overcompensate (this man ban being an example), imposing a quota is unnecessary and really just degrades women implying they don’t have the gumption to stand for office. An ideal percentage or a target number is more along the lines of what we should be using.
That said, the real agenda of the plan in encouraging more women to join the politics game is nothing to shy away from, but to be embraced. David Shearer also finally seems to have realised this and has withdrawn, on July 9th, the women only section of the proposed plan.
All of this uncertainty of opinion, and shoddy media presence is really not going dear David any good – especially with Duncan Garner’s love of finding rumours and scandals in all things Shearer.