The issue of women-only lists is a political hot potato of the highest temperature in Scotland right now. It will come as no surprise to anyone who knows me that I am determinedly pro-independence for Scotland, I went through a pretty profound political awakening last year, and campaigned for a Yes vote, after starting out apathetic and uninformed, a No by default
So I feel terribly disappointed and sad, that across what I feel is a genuinely progressive movement, there is a considerable chunk of the pro-independence population who feel quite passionately that women-only lists are not only the wrong thing to do, but are actually a setback to the cause of equality for women.
This morning I received my at-least-once-daily email from Wings Over Scotland, my go-to site for *actual* investigative journalism, and my heart sank to read the open letter that the Reverend Stuart Campbell had gleefully relayed from a female SNP member who now intends to resign from the party as a result of the women-only list measures being voted in at their conference this weekend. Mr Campbell makes no particular secret of his anti-feminism, and I suppose given his views he could be forgiven for a level of enjoyment in receiving a letter filled with exactly his own brand of laissez-faire feminism, written by a bright and articulate woman. Point proven, no?
Sadly not as far as I can see. Whilst I absolutely applaud the author Lauren for teaching her daughters that they can be anything they want to be, I simply cannot agree that the opportunities for them to do so are available to them in the same way as they will be for my three boys. Male privilege is ingrained so deeply in our society that it has seen as utterly and completely normal; so much so, that any attempt to redress the balance is seen as the interloper, the threat, the wrong.
What we fail consistently to realise, is that the unquestioned status quo is deeply, deeply discriminatory in and of itself.
Perhaps the most soul-destroying comment on the long list of soul-destroying comments on the Wings article comes from Mr Campbell himself:
Let’s think about that for a minute. He thinks we have a level playing field. For women in politics.
The next step in this is possibly even more disturbing; let’s play along. Let’s assume that we do have a level playing field, that we live in an egalitarian meritocracy – how on earth do you explain a 22% representation of women in the House of Commons? Are women only 22% as likely as men to make competent MPs? I suppose that means that women who seek a career in Scottish politics must be innately more competent than our sisters in British politics (albeit still less competent than men, obviously), given that we are in the slightly happier position of having 37.2% representation.
That’s the next logical step, folks. If we assume (as Mr Campbell clearly does) a level playing field, then we must also assume that “women are inferior beings who can’t succeed on a level playing field” – because they’re not succeeding, or at least not in numbers that in any way reflect the population.
But that’s nonsense, of course! In our happy egalitarian meritocracy, we all recognise (or at least realise that we’re meant to recognise) that women are just as likely as men to be good at things. So we’ll have to look for other reasons for the discrepancy…
The next argument that will be trotted out is that women don’t put themselves forward for political careers in the same number as men, so now we’re on to willingness rather than ability. Women choose not to enter politics of their own free will, so it’s not that women are being discriminated against in the selection process, it’s because they don’t want to be politicians.
Ok, let’s go into that one then. Let’s have a look at why women might not want to be politicians…
So there’s that ^^ kind of thing, for a start. I myself toyed with the idea of putting myself forward as a Holyrood 2016 candidate for the Scottish Greens (of which I am a member), and I would be lying if I said that the gendered abuse routinely doled out to women by our male-dominated media wasn’t a factor in my deciding to give it a miss this time round.
Then there’s the issue of work/life balance. Not in a million years would I consider putting myself forward for Westminster, given that I have three children at home, and vestiges of sanity to preserve after half a decade of sleepless nights. Holyrood feels more workable, given that they provide on-site childcare and seem to work semi-sensible hours, but still I had to accept that while the kids are still so young, I will struggle in terms of my practical availability for such a demanding role – let the monstrous vomiting bug that has swept through all five of us this week be testament to that!
And of course, this is my choice. It’s a completely fair and free choice that I made without constraints or limitations on any avenue of opportunity, isn’t it? Because this is our lovely egalitarian meritocracy that we’re dealing with here, where women are no more constrained than men in terms of childcare, no more responsible than men for picking up the family slack when various of its members start squirting at either end, no more vulnerable than men to venomous and hurtful attacks in the media, no more victim than men to lack of confidence or assertiveness after a lifetime of being told implicitly by society that you can’t, you mustn’t, you shouldn’t…
It’s perfectly simple. Men in politics are being swept along comfortably in a system set up by men, for men, with generations of precedent and privilege behind them – they don’t have to be superb, or out-of-the-box talented, they just need to be good enough, and go with the flow. Women are working against the tide; those few who make it into positions of real power have to be fucking exceptional swimmers.
That’s why we need to switch on the wave machine.
Introduce quotas, and what do we get? No, no, no, we do not lists filled with incompetent women who are simply making up numbers to the disadvantage of competent men. We reverse the direction of flow, give women the privilege that has been extended to men as the norm for hundreds of years, and we give those competent women the opportunities they would otherwise be denied.
Then what do we get? We get greater representation for women in politics, more women with a voice, talking about the interests of women and what might work for them, it becomes more “normal” to see women in positions of power, so we get more used to the idea that they might actually be competent. Suddenly the political system isn’t built solely by white, middle-class men for men like them, it starts to show some diversity – you know, a bit more like the population it serves? Isn’t that exactly the sort of democracy that the pro-independence population of Scotland is trying to achieve? Or does representative democracy only count when it’s Holyrood versus Westminster?
Being a feminist is very like being a pro-independence Scot in a Westminster-dominated democracy – and I, of course use the D word in its very loosest sense there. You will not only be regularly attacked by those from whom you wish to redistribute power, but also (and perhaps more annoyingly) by members of your own group that just don’t understand why such redistribution is necessary. Imagine trying to explain to Duncan Hothersall that it’s bad that the Union serves the British Establishment and marginalises Scotland. That, friends, is exactly how a feminist feels when she’s trying to explain the fact that it’s bad that society serves men and marginalises women, to a woman who doesn’t realise she’s been marginalised.
Think of how the pro-independence population of Scotland is vilified in the media – we’re divisive, we’re anti-English, we’re everything evil, up to and including Nazism. Doesn’t that sound just like the media response to discriminatory, anti-male “Feminazis”?
As Westminster wails at the pro-independence community, so will those who perpetuate, embrace or internalise systemic discrimination against women in our society wail at feminism.
Quotas may be a blunt instrument, but they will get the job done. In the same way that the pro-independence community seeks to create a Scotland-only list to redress the balance of political power that currently lies with a privileged group; so we can use women-only lists to redress the balance of power that currently lies with men. It may be a painful process for those who face the prospect of losing their privilege, or for those who have internalised the message – fed so consistently to us – that certain groups don’t deserve to have their voices heard; but that shouldn’t stop us from trying.
The playing field is not level, it has never been level; women-only lists are a start, a good start. I applaud Nicola Sturgeon for tackling the issue with such directness, and the SNP for voting it through.
Of course, perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps I’m horribly wrong and this is the tip of a slippery slope into dystopian feminist nightmare. But surely that’s not what we’re afraid of, is it..?
I agree with every word. I’m the father of a 6 year old girl and I support quotas because I see the pressures and limitations that are already being placed on her, and that aren’t being placed on my two boys. It’s self-evident that action needs to be taken to fix society and equal political representation is a good place to start (and one of the easiest).
As for the Rev. Campbell giving a platform to a woman to hyperbolically argue against quotas – and agreeing exactly with his own position, naturally – well, no Republican politicans in Texas ever have a problem finding poor people willing to argue against healthcare. It’s normal to hear someone viciously arguing against something is absolutely in their own interest; I imagine there must be plenty about that in the scientific literature.
Still weird, though.
Thanks for your reply and positive words Rab. Glad the first comment was a supportive one… *ducks* 😉
Great blog. Totally agree. Level playing field does not exist for women and it won’t until women who want to change the system for all are better represented in the positions of power.
Thank you for this thoughtful piece Elaine. Your point “a Scotland-only list to redress the balance of political power that currently lies with a privileged group” really drives it home.
I thoroughly enjoyed this. Thinking about gender quotas and women only lists lastnight, I had tweeted that positive discrimination is still discrimination and therefore I’m still against it. I also worry about some women feeling or being viewed as the token female, there by gender rather than merit. However, I don’t have a solution or alternative idea to the current quota/list and as we very clearly do not have equality, I would be very happy for my concern to be proven wrong.
A great piece of writing, that has challenged my initial thoughts on the matter. Thank you x
What a lovely comment Lissa, thank you! I’m very glad you found the article thought-provoking. El x
Any form of bias in a selection procedure inevitably means that some of the better candidates will be excluded on grounds other than ability. Thus there’s a very simple and obvious argument for a gender balance policy: good government.
However, gender balance is a statistical argument and so we have to think in terms of statistics. Even in a perfect system there would be a certain amount of random variability from year to year and therefore imbalance might be better judged by considering the long-term average than any specific annual figure.
That’s not an argument against quotas – in fact it could be an argument for larger quotas if the long-term average stubbornly refuses to balance out to a reasonable ratio.
Reblogged this on Bampots Utd.
leaving the employment issue for 1 second a would like to see a domestic abuse register were if women are dating a man they can ask the police if hes violent this would save lifes as well as fighting for rights in the board room there is other major issues also mandatory prison sentences for violence towards women am loving the new scotland and the thought that now there is going to be serious change for women and now they have a platform via alternative media !
I must admit until this issue came up at the weekend I had not given it much thought. Indeed as a new SNP member, had I been asked, I would instinctively have felt it was a backward move, and the ‘everyone on merit’ argument was paramount.
However the tone on Wings ( who does a great job but who does historical have form – normally a hissy fit – over some ‘feminist’ issues) seemed so OTT I though there is clearly more to this so I did a bit of digging and read a lot of very well written and researched posts and articles, espousing both sides of the argument, including Lauren’s own story. I have come to the view that AWSs are not only required but essential to make a step change in equality of representation. Your post articulates the issues as well as any I have seen.
I hope that this move only needs to last a couple of years but if it levels the playing field then it can only be worthwhile.
Thank you Lynne for your kind words! I too hope that quotas will be self-limiting, as women-focused policies make their way into society via better representation for women in parliament. Imagine how great it would be if we didn’t *need* them??
Tapadh leat Elaine. As you write so well, it’s not a level playing field and it’s all about unequal power. Many’s the time I’ve seen a radical/left male ‘comrade’ become hostile when faced with feminism – maybe a bit close to home for some? It’s strange and illogical to hear someone make the case for independence/autonomy/equality one minute, then refuse it for women the next. The Wings stuff is disappointing yet familiar – write off feminism as middle class.
[…] room, the idea of fighting – again – is exhausting because we do it every single day. This quote from fellow green and feminist blogger F-MOB sums it up for […]
[…] of women in parliament (either Scottish or UK)? Based on the response to the adoption of women only lists by the SNP last year, I can only assume it would be a roar of outrage louder than Mr Bull’s […]
[…] chosen to squander that opportunity by turning her into exactly the kind of halfwit that people opposed to quotas believe will fill up parliament in the event we start “making up numbers” […]