At the risk of getting comments about a woman’s inability to make up her mind, I have always had a slightly schizophrenic attitude towards positive discrimination to get more women into public life. On the one hand, I know there are huge numbers of women who would give the men in Parliament more than a run for their money and they can succeed on their own, without the help of a ‘leg up’ via legislation. On the other, I see how hard it is for those women to get the chance even to stand for Parliament, thanks to – dare I say it – institutionally sexist elements in the party.
That last comment is not meant to be inflammatory – it’s simply a statement of fact. The research released by the Fawcett Society in February this year made depressing reading. Many capable, eloquent women who stuck their heads above the parapet to go for selection found themselves under fire. Not just that, but they appeared to be subject to different rules to their male counterparts. I went to a few selection and pre-selection meetings and at one the most intelligent question I was asked was the whereabouts of the toilet!
While we expect a certain level of sturdiness in those we choose to represent the party, do we really expect them to walk on broken glass to reach the dizzy heights of candidature? You may expect to have to defend your political standpoints, your views on health, on education, on the ubiquitous PPP. But should a candidate – any candidate, male or female – really be subjected to comments about their personal life, their decision whether or not to have children, or what underwear they have on?
This may prompt gasps of indignation and horror, not to mention a fair measure of incredulity, but the fact is that it happens – and, worst of all, it happens when we select our Labour prospective parliamentary candidates.
As a party, Labour stands for equality for all – men, women, black, white, gay, straight – yet as a party organisation, the noble art of open-handedness is all too often forgotten. I have sat in Labour Party meetings where I’ve been amazed by what I’ve heard from other members, the levels of sexism, racism and homophobia that abound. The reality is that members who indulge in such views should be made to retract them, or face expulsion from the party.
These are nice words, but we all know the reality: that these members will continue with their comments because ‘they mean well’ or ‘they always work hard come election time’. Never mind the cancer they are to the party as a whole.
That is why my schizophrenia often – though not always – turns to pragmatism when faced with the option of positive discrimination legislation. I know there are probably hundreds of women out there who can do a damn fine job, both as candidates and MPs, but the chances of them actually getting there are slim. While some can rely on patronage and good old fashioned sisterhood, there are many others amongst us who have to get our noses bloodied simply to be in there with a shot at the main chance.
Legislation and quotas are not the ideal solution to the problem of representation, but they may be our best option.