Comments on: The majority of voters are female, so does it matter that the majority of MPs are men? http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2009/11/the-majority-of-voters-are-female-so-does-it-matter-that-the-majority-of-mps-are-men.htm Liberal Democrat MP for Hornsey and Wood Green Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:43:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Bill http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2009/11/the-majority-of-voters-are-female-so-does-it-matter-that-the-majority-of-mps-are-men.htm/comment-page-1#comment-2510 Bill Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:28:42 +0000 http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/?p=5418#comment-2510 Sexist clap-trap. We might as well have kids in parliament (instead of adults acting like kids) as they are under-represented and adults might not be able to remember how life is like from their perspective. Sexist clap-trap. We might as well have kids in parliament (instead of adults acting like kids) as they are under-represented and adults might not be able to remember how life is like from their perspective.

]]> By: Harriet Harms Man http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2009/11/the-majority-of-voters-are-female-so-does-it-matter-that-the-majority-of-mps-are-men.htm/comment-page-1#comment-2506 Harriet Harms Man Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:59:04 +0000 http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/?p=5418#comment-2506 Just thinking about this again. The main reasons there are more female voters than male ones are due to the healthcare service failing men, corporate manslaughter and a lack of workplace safety, a failure to tackle male suicide/depression, and the increase in violent crime (which disproportionately impacts on males, especially in terms of fatalities). The fact we kill/fail so many men and regard them as the most dispensable in our society really isn't a good method of arguing for more female MPs. Your average soldier coming back from Afghanistan on a daily basis in a coffin isn't entitled to vote, and neither are any of the men who died in Iraq, the Falklands or even any of the 405,000 British soldiers killed in World War Two. However, I feel people in Parliament should still be there representing the memory of these men and everything they stood for just as much as they represent any living constituent (if not more so). The real question should be why don't we have more living male voters, rather than arguing that the deaths of so many men are one reason for having more females MPs. Don't get me wrong, it would be fair enough if say the birth rate of female babies was higher than males, but that isn't even slightly true either, there are in fact MORE boys born than girls and always have been. Just thinking about this again.

The main reasons there are more female voters than male ones are due to the healthcare service failing men, corporate manslaughter and a lack of workplace safety, a failure to tackle male suicide/depression, and the increase in violent crime (which disproportionately impacts on males, especially in terms of fatalities).

The fact we kill/fail so many men and regard them as the most dispensable in our society really isn't a good method of arguing for more female MPs.

Your average soldier coming back from Afghanistan on a daily basis in a coffin isn't entitled to vote, and neither are any of the men who died in Iraq, the Falklands or even any of the 405,000 British soldiers killed in World War Two. However, I feel people in Parliament should still be there representing the memory of these men and everything they stood for just as much as they represent any living constituent (if not more so).

The real question should be why don't we have more living male voters, rather than arguing that the deaths of so many men are one reason for having more females MPs. Don't get me wrong, it would be fair enough if say the birth rate of female babies was higher than males, but that isn't even slightly true either, there are in fact MORE boys born than girls and always have been.

]]> By: Harriet Harms Man http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2009/11/the-majority-of-voters-are-female-so-does-it-matter-that-the-majority-of-mps-are-men.htm/comment-page-1#comment-2505 Harriet Harms Man Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:23:38 +0000 http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/?p=5418#comment-2505 Don't exactly understand this article, I very much hope Lynne isn't seeking to defend All women shortlists (it seems rather ambiguous either way). It's abundantly clear that sexist all-women shortlists certainly aren't the answer to anything and will make the situation worse rather than better. They're both hugely offensive to women and to the electorate as a whole. They fundamentally go against the whole democratic system we're so proud of in this country. Just look at the Labour party, almost all of the most truely inept and useless female MPs got into Parliament on all women shortlists rather than on merit., it really has been a disaster. Take a look at the 1997 election for example when all women shortlists were used for the first tiem. They brought us the likes of Jacqui Smith, Helen Brinton/Clarke and worst of all Margaret Moran to name just a few. At the very same time, people such as Mo Mowlam similarly made their Parliamentary debut, yet did so lawfully and on merit. Quite depressing that David Cameron seems to be looking to ban male candidates from standing too. It will at least be good news for the Lib Dems though I suppose - anyone out there who genuinely opposes sexism and racism woudlnt' be able to vote Labout or Cnservative, thus leaving people in many areas with basically no option other than to vote Lib Dem. I agree diversity in Parliament is a good thing, but it's quite frankly ludicrous to just focus on gender or race (nevermind be totally obsessed with it). The vast majority of people in Parliament come from rich and hugely privileged backgrounds. Not just in the Conservatives as one might think, but there's that many champagne socialists in the Labour Party these days that the two parties are virtually indistinguishable in so many ways. Whilst being wealthy doesn't automatically stop anyone being any good at politics, in the current system so many such people are incredibly out of touch with reality and make equally appalling decisions regardless of what set of genitalia they happen to have. I.e. the difference between your average, privately educated, privileged female, and a similar male is basically ZERO. especially when considered relative to a candidate who grew up in a working class setting or had to fend for themselves in their lives. And we should of course remember that All Women shortlists were used by Labour to get rid of potential trouble makers (i.e. the more working class, decent men who stood up for what was right and what they believed in rather than towing the party line). If we had a more people like that in Parliament (male or female) is very clear we wouldn't be in the same mess we're in today. Don't exactly understand this article, I very much hope Lynne isn't seeking to defend All women shortlists (it seems rather ambiguous either way). It's abundantly clear that sexist all-women shortlists certainly aren't the answer to anything and will make the situation worse rather than better. They're both hugely offensive to women and to the electorate as a whole. They fundamentally go against the whole democratic system we're so proud of in this country.

Just look at the Labour party, almost all of the most truely inept and useless female MPs got into Parliament on all women shortlists rather than on merit., it really has been a disaster. Take a look at the 1997 election for example when all women shortlists were used for the first tiem. They brought us the likes of Jacqui Smith, Helen Brinton/Clarke and worst of all Margaret Moran to name just a few. At the very same time, people such as Mo Mowlam similarly made their Parliamentary debut, yet did so lawfully and on merit.

Quite depressing that David Cameron seems to be looking to ban male candidates from standing too. It will at least be good news for the Lib Dems though I suppose - anyone out there who genuinely opposes sexism and racism woudlnt' be able to vote Labout or Cnservative, thus leaving people in many areas with basically no option other than to vote Lib Dem.

I agree diversity in Parliament is a good thing, but it's quite frankly ludicrous to just focus on gender or race (nevermind be totally obsessed with it). The vast majority of people in Parliament come from rich and hugely privileged backgrounds. Not just in the Conservatives as one might think, but there's that many champagne socialists in the Labour Party these days that the two parties are virtually indistinguishable in so many ways.

Whilst being wealthy doesn't automatically stop anyone being any good at politics, in the current system so many such people are incredibly out of touch with reality and make equally appalling decisions regardless of what set of genitalia they happen to have. I.e. the difference between your average, privately educated, privileged female, and a similar male is basically ZERO. especially when considered relative to a candidate who grew up in a working class setting or had to fend for themselves in their lives.

And we should of course remember that All Women shortlists were used by Labour to get rid of potential trouble makers (i.e. the more working class, decent men who stood up for what was right and what they believed in rather than towing the party line).

If we had a more people like that in Parliament (male or female) is very clear we wouldn't be in the same mess we're in today.

]]> By: Jayne McCoy http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2009/11/the-majority-of-voters-are-female-so-does-it-matter-that-the-majority-of-mps-are-men.htm/comment-page-1#comment-2501 Jayne McCoy Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:39:20 +0000 http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/?p=5418#comment-2501 Yes it does matter, and to correct the balance the first thing that needs to be addressed is that off-putting political system. Parliament can represent a barrier to many women specifically because it has evolved to fit around the lives and preferences of the men who dominate it. It has been shown in many workforces that the addition of women does change the ethos of an organisation in a way that is usually judged to be beneficial. However we need to get sufficient numbers of women elected to be able to make our presence felt. Once we get that balance I expect to see some significant changes to the way we 'do' Politics. Yes it does matter, and to correct the balance the first thing that needs to be addressed is that off-putting political system. Parliament can represent a barrier to many women specifically because it has evolved to fit around the lives and preferences of the men who dominate it. It has been shown in many workforces that the addition of women does change the ethos of an organisation in a way that is usually judged to be beneficial. However we need to get sufficient numbers of women elected to be able to make our presence felt. Once we get that balance I expect to see some significant changes to the way we 'do' Politics.

]]>