Political parties should seek to recruit qualified women as candidates. They should do so because women are electable and make good policymakers and leaders, not to reach an artificial goal of gender "parity" among elected officials.
The notion that "Democratic legitimacy in the United States demands we continue to move toward gender parity in electoral office," as advanced in the Brookings report, wrongly assumes that men and women have divergent interests and that only women properly speak for and reflect women's values. As a supporter of limited government and free markets, I don't feel my views are reflected in any way by Speaker Nancy Pelosi or presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton.
Women wield tremendous political power in our democratic process, by exercising the right to vote (women cast 54% of ballots in 2004), working in government and holding public office at all levels. While women represent a minority of elected positions, Clinton, Pelosi, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and many others have demonstrated that women can reach the heights of political power. And women continue to assume roles once exclusively held by men.
Yet there is no reason to expect men and women to be equally represented in elected office. Research indicates women are less interested in the process of running for and holding office, and they have other preferences for how to use their time and talents. Those fixated on achieving "gender parity" - whether it's in the halls of Congress, university science departments or in day care centers - want to discount men's and women's stated interests and preferences, which frequently diverge. But we should not assume that individuals are routinely mistaken about what careers give them fulfillment.
The modern campaign process requires long hours under intense media scrutiny. Unwise restrictions on fundraising make it necessary for candidates to seek new sources of money continuously. Fewer women than men are willing to undertake these activities.
Yes, the public should question whether the political process is conducive to identifying and electing the best representatives - I doubt it is. The right reforms would encourage the participation of people who can best serve our country, regardless of gender.
2 Comments
fran froelich | June 2, 2008, 7:07am | #
Biology is destiny. If gender roles and functions have equalized, it's largely been a result of technologic changes that have enabled women to do jobs that men previously only had the strength to do. These include a number of previously pick-and-shovel contstruction jobs. More women are building roads, frex, because of the invention of heavy machines. You don't, however, see many women plumbers. The latter involves more heavy lifting than most women are capable of.
But for all the changes in laws and customs, plus the communications revolution, politics is still dirty, nasty, and competetive. In high-stakes races, ads will go negative, like it or not. Historically, they always have. Michelle Obama's whine that politics has gotten meaner in her lifetime reflects more media outlets competing for attention. But it's really a matter of degree, not kind.
Once in office, constituents expect service. Collegues expect support for their projects. And they expect it regardless of gender. It's like any other business or service. The voters are employers who expect a job to be done. They might sympathize with the sick mom or the kids' soccer schedule--but will vote for the other guy (or gal)if their needs aren't met.
Men are better equipped BY NATURE to concentrate on the task at hand. They don't have the physical investment in caregiving that women, by dint of pregnancy and nursing, do. Most men can both delegate and compartmentalize. Frex, if Mom needs a ride to the doctor, a son will be much more likely than a daughter to arrange for a driving service and a paid advocate if needed. He can logically figure out the economic value of his job as opposed to caregiving.
Women, more than men, will miss a vote or worry, if Mom has to go to the doctor without her. (It's equally true in any other professional field.)
These are the realities which feminists need to face. They won't be solved by flexible schedules, part-timing, temping, or job-sharing. There's no "mommy-tracking" in politics. It ain't beanbag--or kindergarten, either. Men seem to understand that it isn't as civics classes present it.
Until women understand and accept the nasty realities that go with public service, the numbers of female elected officials will continue to be small.
Crystal | June 2, 2008, 4:30pm | #
The US will not tolerate some quota system to make the Democrats happy. Good grief, we want qualified women on both side of the aisle to represent the people, not some agenda for the liberals.
How many of you readers knew that the first woman elected to Congress was Jeanette Rankin from Montana and that she was a Republican too? Did you also know that she was elected before the 1920 amendment was passed? She worked for the right for women to vote, and she helped get the law passed in Montana to achieve that goal. Women get elected because of their efforts and work, not just for showing up and saying, HERE I AM, I AM A WOMAN, ELECT ME.
Now, if McCain picks Condi Rice as his VP, it will be because he believes that she brings the state of California, and most of the Southern states with the ticket. Why? She became successful because of dedication to education and hard work, plus years at our top diplomat. No one is suggesting that Condi Rice be the VP just because she is a woman, nor just because she is African-American. She has a great life story about making herself successful in our society, and she has pulled herself up in spite of the hardships of segregation. Few Democrats can muddy up her image, yet they will try so that McCain would not select to put her on his ticket. Could it be that the Democrats are so fearful of her that they have already started to sabotage her? Need I say more?