What discourages women from politics?

[X5N]

I'm a beginner when it comes to feminist theory and such. So perhaps someone could help me out here?

I'm not only interested in the factors that make women less likely to run for political office, but also, the factors that lead to sites like this or this (http://uselectionatlas.org/) having an immense male-to-female ratio.

[l'Enfermé]

I will say it first: Because women are not as dishonest as men.

[Veovis]

I will say it first: Because women are not as dishonest as men.

:sneaky:

[Revolution starts with U]

That's funny, so I liked it. But in reality I see no honest ratio differences in the sexes.

[l'Enfermé]

Oh, and yeah, liberal feminism is bullshit. Drop it.

[Ostrinski]

Probably because bourgeois politics is a giant locker room mentality sausage fest.

[ParaRevolutionary]

The amount of men who consider women too ignorant and emotional to be effective at it.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I honestly wasn't aware that a majority of women do not participate, or were discouraged from participating in politics. Then again, the gender ratio is not something I've ever stopped to consider.

[X5N]

Oh, and yeah, liberal feminism is bullshit. Drop it.

What exactly is liberal feminism? Is that the milquetoast variety that asserts that abortion and contraception (and legal barriers to equality in general) are the only problems facing women, as if women can just scurry back to the kitchen once those issues have been resolved?

Or am I just running on an insane tangent with no basis in reality?

[Ostrinski]

Bourgeois (liberal) feminism is essentially identity politics. The feminists who believe that women's struggle is something divorced from the class struggle and try to attribute more political content to feminism than necessary.

[manic expression]

I will say it first: Because women are not as dishonest as men.
Umm, you don't actually believe that, do you?

[Proukunin]

Women are just a capable of being political as men. There really is no discouragement led against women..Everything that conservatives do to restrict women's rights should actually encourage them to be more politically active.

I know a number of women who are politically active and for good reasons..some of them may be liberal but that's where I started before I learned of revolutionary political theory.

[X5N]

Bourgeois (liberal) feminism is essentially identity politics. The feminists who believe that women's struggle is something divorced from the class struggle and try to attribute more political content to feminism than necessary.

Alright. So, does what I said have any basis in reality? That the kind of feminism so common in at least the U.S. assumes that legal barriers to equality are the only problem, and assumes that there's absolutely nothing else wrong with the nature of gender in society? Or am I ridiculously mistaken?

[Ostrinski]

Alright. So, does what I said have any basis in reality? That the kind of feminism so common in at least the U.S. assumes that legal barriers to equality are the only problem, and assumes that there's absolutely nothing else wrong with the nature of gender in society? Or am I ridiculously mistaken?Nah you're right. Bourgeois feminists mainly only focus on the legal character of the women's struggle.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

The reason is because we live in a society in which women are still viewed as items of sexual pleasure, possession, and nothing else. Now, women are expected to be stupid and party, supposed to imitate horrible people like Snooki or Paris Hilton. Smart and independent women are cast out and looked down upon. In such a society where these cultural tendencies prevail, no wonder women are discouraged from politics.

[manic expression]

The reason is because we live in a society in which women are still viewed as items of sexual pleasure, possession, and nothing else. Now, women are expected to be stupid and party, supposed to imitate horrible people like Snooki or Paris Hilton. Smart and independent women are cast out and looked down upon. In such a society where these cultural tendencies prevail, no wonder women are discouraged from politics.
Anti-intellectualism applies quite generally to both men and women.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Anti-intellectualism applies quite generally to both men and women.

True that

[Le Rouge]

I will say it first: Because women are not as dishonest as men.

Sexist.


And to answer the topic question, i say : Gender roles could be something that discourages women into politics.

[X5N]

Nah you're right. Bourgeois feminists mainly only focus on the legal character of the women's struggle.

Ah, alright. Thanks.

[l'Enfermé]

What exactly is liberal feminism? Is that the milquetoast variety that asserts that abortion and contraception (and legal barriers to equality in general) are the only problems facing women, as if women can just scurry back to the kitchen once those issues have been resolved?

Or am I just running on an insane tangent with no basis in reality?
Liberal feminism is what a Marxist would call bourgeoisie feminism, which is basically the most common form of feminism. Bourgeoisie feminism is unscientific and undialectical. It's unhistorical. Some strands of it root the causes of the oppression of women in biology, and not in social relations. All bourgeoisie feminism does is distract us from the real cause of the oppression of women in capitalist society: the capitalist system.


Umm, you don't actually believe that, do you?
No. Women are all liars, it is men who are more honest, of course!

Yes, I was joking.

[Raúl Duke]

A lot of people are mentioning liberal feminism and the "boys locker room" or "good ole boys" club nature of mainstream politics-political parties, and that's good and all (that they're mentioned)....

But also the Left (and activist circles) itself has also faced feminists critiques. Even on revleft, most likely a large amount of posters are disproportionately male (although this isn't much of an indictment towards the left or activist circles...revleft is only just a message board and not so significant relative to movements and organizations in the grander scheme of things). Allegedly,"male privilege" of some sort and/or even sexist attitudes still abound within the Left and activist milleu; something that should be combated against wherever present.

[9]

I don't think that women are particularly discouraged from politics, actually. I am not sure if people in this thread are assuming for some strange reason that the demographics of revleft posters reflect the demographics of people who are politically active in general...? Because they don't. At all.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The reason is because we live in a society in which women are still viewed as items of sexual pleasure, possession, and nothing else. Now, women are expected to be stupid and party, supposed to imitate horrible people like Snooki or Paris Hilton. Smart and independent women are cast out and looked down upon. In such a society where these cultural tendencies prevail, no wonder women are discouraged from politics.

This is along the lines of what I'm thinking, although I think it's far more insidious than that:

http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/7065/girlsbeauty.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/607/girlsbeauty.jpg/)

The above image you see is supposed to be a science kit aimed at young girls (http://www.wildscience.net/girls.html).

Two words: Gender expectations. Despite their slight academic lead over boys, it is still considered acceptable to assume that females don't have any intellectual inclinations and must be induced to them by pinky colours and "girly" subjects.

Science, like politics, should be something intrinsically interesting to both sexes.

[Agent Ducky]

I guess because society still kind of views politics as a masculine pursuit.
Traditionally women aren't supposed to have their own opinions or voice them (not that that's true today, but women could be silenced more often or have their opinion valued less in some instances)
Also, in traditional gender roles women are more "virtuous" and therefore not fit for politics..

As for Revleft itself I think males are just more likely than females to post on politically-oriented message boards than women for whatever reason. It's not just politics, it's the internet aspect too.

[gorillafuck]

The reason is because we live in a society in which women are still viewed as items of sexual pleasure, possession, and nothing else.I don't think that this is true.

[Zav]

The present culture still expects women to be homemakers.

[Anarpest]

Politics is a traditionally rational, serious occupation. In the same tradition, 'rational' and 'serious' are basically codewords for 'male.'

Surprisingly, modern politics is neither rational nor serious.

[28350]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/us/politics/washington-state-has-a-history-of-women-in-government.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=women&st=cse

What Gender Gap? Washington State Has a History of Women Who Lead
By ISOLDE RAFTERY
SEATTLE — It was 2009, floods had inundated western Washington and the state’s politicians were flown up to survey the damage. When asked who would scoot down to the open end of the C-17 cargo plane, where they would have to be tethered down for safety, Gov. Christine Gregoire and Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray volunteered.

As Ms. Cantwell tells it, the men declined.

“Everybody thinks that the macho men would do that,” Ms. Cantwell said. “But it was the three of us willing to go back there.”

For Ms. Cantwell, who has a photograph of that moment hanging in her lobby, the story speaks to the last eight years, the only time in the country’s history when a state’s governor and two senators have all been women. That time ends in January, as Ms. Gregoire will not seek a third term, and both the Republican and the Democrat vying to succeed her are men.

Nationwide, women’s groups point out the glaring gender disparity in public life, noting that there are only 6 female governors and 17 female senators. Across the country, women make up 23.6 percent of state legislatures, according to Off the Sidelines, a project started last year by Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand of New York. But in Washington State, women’s serving in public office has been as consistent as the rain.

“Every once in a while a note or a letter will mention it,” Ms. Gregoire said. “But mostly, it’s taken for granted.”

Courtney Gregoire, her daughter, would relay differences between Washington State and Washington, D.C., where she worked as the director of the National Export Initiative at the Commerce Department. She found herself biting her tongue when men mentioned her age (she is 32), and she started wearing pantsuits to appear older. Once, after being the lone woman in a meeting of 25, she called her mother.

The governor replied, “Welcome to how it was for us.”

For Ms. Cantwell and Ms. Murray, it has been a somewhat strange dynamic. They are not in the minority among politicians in their home state, but they are at the national level, and as such, have been called on to speak up for women. Recently, the two grabbed the spotlight during the debate over contraception.

Speaking to the Senate this month, Ms. Murray recalled when the government nearly shut down over whether to give money to Planned Parenthood, a women’s health organization opposed by conservatives because some of its clinics provide abortions.

“I was the only woman in the room,” Ms. Murray said. “And I stood up with those men and I said, ‘No, we will not give away the funding for this over this budget.’ And the women of the Senate the next morning stood tall, we gathered all of our colleagues together, and we fought back. We won that battle.”

When Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Murray and Ms. Gregoire reflect on how their state became comfortable with female politicians, they hesitate to mention the pioneer women who traveled to the Northwest by wagon (“That would leave out the strong women of Maine,” Ms. Murray said) and note that women lead many Northwest Indian tribes.

They emphasize that they had role models and that they are not the first women to hold high-level office in the state. That distinction goes to Dixy Lee Ray, whose 1976 gubernatorial campaign slogan was “Little lady takes on big boys,” and Bertha K. Landes who, elected as mayor of Seattle in 1926, became the first female mayor of a major American city. (Her slogan was “Municipal housekeeping.”)

David Olson, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Washington, went farther back in history: women were allowed to vote during the territorial days, he said, before Washington became a state in 1889. The territorial government ended women’s suffrage, worried that it would cost it statehood. Dr. Olson also argued that because the West was settled later, male-dominated politics have been less embedded in the culture.

“You can’t teach Washington State government and politics without paying significant attention to women, because we are very exceptional in that regard,” said Dr. Olson, who taught state government for 20 years. “It makes a difference in how issues arise and how they are tended to.”

A report released last week by the Center for Public Integrity, which ranked Washington State third in terms of accountability, agreed. The authors credited, in part, Washington’s “breed of tough, activist women” for the relative transparency of its government.

Representative Norm Dicks, a Washington Democrat retiring after 36 years in the House of Representatives, speaks fondly of the women he has worked with — although he said Ms. Ray was a pistol and hard to work with. But sometimes, Mr. Dicks said, he wished the female politicians were not always so pro-woman.

“I think women tend to advocate for women, and I think to myself, ‘They ought to mention men, too,’ ” he said. “When I’m running, I’m not just talking about men, I’m talking about men, women and children. I think women in politics have to be a little careful not to act as if they’re just representing women.”

Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Gregoire and Ms. Murray have campaigned together, he said, and Ms. Murray in particular has focused on recruiting women to run for public office.

“All of that is great but I feel like, ‘Can’t they find a good man to run sometimes?’ ” Mr. Dicks said.

That unflagging support for women’s issues comes from a feeling that women still need more of a voice, Ms. Murray said.

She and Ms. Gregoire met on the campaign trail in 1992, the so-called Year of the Woman in the Senate. Ms. Murray was running as the “mom in tennis shoes” and also as the first female senator from Washington. Ms. Gregoire was running for state attorney general and dealing with critics who questioned if she was tough enough for the job.

“When I first ran for attorney general — how should I put it? — the rap on me was that I wasn’t tough enough,” Ms. Gregoire said. “For governor it’s that I’m too tough. In each of these instances, it’s not related to me and who I am, it’s all related to my gender.”

But these days, Ms. Gregoire said, even men in their 80s and 90s, Republicans and Democrats, are more interested in speaking with her about issues than about her gender.

“We’ve pretty much taken care of all the firsts in our state,” she said, rattling off a list of elected offices now held by women — the State Senate majority leader, the Supreme Court chief justice, the King County sheriff. “So if anyone tries to vie with us for the top three, they have a ways to go with the rest, too.”

[Hermes]

It also has a lot to do with how our society's perception of women effects those who may want to run. If a women is tending the household, children, etc (because the family has designated that as her role, not saying that's all that women do), perhaps ALSO having another job, and on top of that struggling against the normal wealth barrier of politics, then it's easy to see why less women may run. Not many men have the same issues to deal with in our society.

(which is primarily why wealthier women get into politics (although also because that's just how politics work))
--

(again, just my opinion)

[X5N]

This is along the lines of what I'm thinking, although I think it's far more insidious than that:

The above image you see is supposed to be a science kit aimed at young girls (http://www.wildscience.net/girls.html).

Two words: Gender expectations. Despite their slight academic lead over boys, it is still considered acceptable to assume that females don't have any intellectual inclinations and must be induced to them by pinky colours and "girly" subjects.

Science, like politics, should be something intrinsically interesting to both sexes.

There's also the fact that products targeted towards boys are always advertised as being cool and using fancy technology. While a similar product marketed to girls is always explained as magic or somesuch.

[9]

This is along the lines of what I'm thinking, although I think it's far more insidious than that:

http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/7065/girlsbeauty.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/607/girlsbeauty.jpg/)

The above image you see is supposed to be a science kit aimed at young girls (http://www.wildscience.net/girls.html).

Two words: Gender expectations.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Toymax_Creepy_Crawlers.jpg

The above image you see is supposed to be a science kit aimed at young boys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creepy_Crawlers).

Two words: Gender expectations.

Seriously, tho. Maybe I am being oversensitive, but a lot of the responses in this thread, and threads like this in the past, always seem a little patronizing or condescending or something, and make a lot of weird assumptions. Its like saying, "well, I think in all probability, the reason why it is so rare for a woman to possess any intelligence at all, is because girls are taught to aspire to be unintelligent from a young age." Its like, maybe there is something wrong with part of your assumption? I mean, I don't know what planet you guys live on, but personally I know a lot of female "activists", and in my experience, politically inclined women aren't a rarity at all.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm being sort of rude by the way, I'm not intending to be. :)

[black magick hustla]

i dont think women in general are not "politically inclined" but in my experience, the more abstract and theoretical and esoteric a subject matter becomes, there are going to be less women. this can be from a das kapital reading circle, to a group of high energy physics theory.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Toymax_Creepy_Crawlers.jpg

The above image you see is supposed to be a science kit aimed at young boys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creepy_Crawlers).

Two words: Gender expectations.

Yes, gender expectations cut both ways. Thank you for pointing out the bleeding obvious.


Seriously, tho. Maybe I am being oversensitive, but a lot of the responses in this thread, and threads like this in the past, always seem a little patronizing or condescending or something, and make a lot of weird assumptions. Its like saying, "well, I think in all probability, the reason why it is so rare for a woman to possess any intelligence at all, is because girls are taught to aspire to be unintelligent from a young age." Its like, maybe there is something wrong with part of your assumption?

Like what? Are you saying that no, an interest in makeup and beauty products is not stereotypically associated with females, to the point where a boy can experience significant bullying if they display any kind of interest in such things to their peers?


I mean, I don't know what planet you guys live on, but personally I know a lot of female "activists", and in my experience, politically inclined women aren't a rarity at all.

I never said they were. Social expectations aren't the same thing as social realities.


Sorry if it sounds like I'm being sort of rude by the way, I'm not intending to be. :)

I wanted to illustrate just how early this kind of thing gets impressed into young minds.

[9]

Are you saying that no, an interest in makeup and beauty products is not stereotypically associated with females, to the point where a boy can experience significant bullying if they display any kind of interest in such things to their peers?


No, I am not saying that at all? But I dont think an interest in beauty products and makeup and fashion etc. somehow precludes an interest in politics. Its like someone earlier in this thread mentioned how terrible it is that girls like to party or something like that. A lot of people party, including males. I dont think there is anything wrong with it, either. And I dont think it has anything to do with whether or not someone can take an interest in politics.



I never said they were. Social expectations aren't the same thing as social realities.The first part of my post was a joking response to the image you posted, but the rest of my post was not really intended to be in response to you in particular, but a general response to a lot of the sort of posts that people have been making in this thread. Sorry for the confusion.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No, I am not saying that at all? But I dont think an interest in beauty products and makeup and fashion etc. somehow precludes an interest in politics. Its like someone earlier in this thread mentioned how terrible it is that girls like to party or something like that. A lot of people party, including males. I dont think there is anything wrong with it, either. And I dont think it has anything to do with whether or not someone can take an interest in politics.

Let me be clear - I don't think an interest in makeup or going out to parties or whatever necessarily precludes political activity.


The first part of my post was a joking response to the image you posted, but the rest of my post was not really intended to be in response to you in particular, but a general response to a lot of the sort of posts that people have been making in this thread. Sorry for the confusion.

I think it would be better if you directed your criticisms at what it is specifically you find objectionable, as otherwise you risk being misinterpreted. I couldn't help but follow on from the first part of your post to the next.

[human strike]

The reason is patriarchy. Women are socialised to follow and be submissive to men. Men are socialised to be confident in their views and, hell, to lead. With women it is the opposite. Really we have to look at the ways activists (and I mean activism of all political tendencies) organise, especially the way they structure their meetings. Rarely are they pro-actively and consciously done in such a way as to challenge privilege and gender roles. If you go to a meeting of a socialist organisation chances are men will do most of the talking and if there are any women there (and yes it is an IF!) then commonly they'll be quiet, possibly making cups of tea.

If we want women, and actually anyone at all who isn't white, heterosexual, able-bodied and male, to actively engage in struggles then we have to organise in such ways that privilege nobody.

[Regicollis]

I think some of the reason is that there are different cultural norms for what should interest men and women. The norm for women is that they should be interested in the things that are close to them like friends, family, the home etc. than men are. Men are expected to be more out-going and more interested in abstract things that they are not directly involved in like politics, science, professional sports etc.

The expectations are neither logical nor do I think they are consciously enforced. I think it is a cultural under-current that shapes us as persons from a very young age so that women are not just expected not to be interested in politics - they are also genuinely not as interested as men.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm a beginner when it comes to feminist theory and such. So perhaps someone could help me out here?

I'm not only interested in the factors that make women less likely to run for political office, but also, the factors that lead to sites like this or this (http://uselectionatlas.org/) having an immense male-to-female ratio.

Gender roles is most definitely part of it. If you read any manners column or a magazine for women you'll find examples of things like "when hosting a dinner party, change the subject if politics come up". On a certain level it's not considered polite for women to talk about politics. The establishment doesn't come right out and say that explicitly like they would have in the pre-Women's Lib era, but it's definitely still right below the surface.

Conservatives regularly call not just real feminists, but any political or outspoken woman a "feminazi" or similar things. If you play college sports people say you are unfeminine, if you are first lady it's a scandal if you try and head anything other than a white house redecorating committee. If you speak out for medial rights as a woman you're publicly called a "slut".

For one thing, when 1/2 of your workforce gets systematically paid less than the rest, you don't really want to overly-encourage their political involvement.

Also, running for public office requires a huge amount of funding, so I think essentially the ruling class overtly favors male candidates. Women can run and often are more represented at the local level than in state and federal positions because I think at a certain point they just don't get as much backing.

[9]

I mean, I guess it would be helpful for the whole discussion if we defined what precisely was meant by 'politics'? Are we talking about ruling class politics, communist politics, mainstream liberal politics....? politics in general? or what?

[bricolage]

If you go to a meeting of a socialist organisation chances are men will do most of the talking and if there are any women there (and yes it is an IF!) then commonly they'll be quiet, possibly making cups of tea.
pardon? I don't know what meetings you have been going to but (for my sins) I've been to plenty and I've never seen the women 'quiet' and 'making cups of tea'. this seems a ridiculous caricature of... well I'm not even sure what.

for sure it is often men that seek to dominate the speaking (although I think this is also down to leftist personality types) and there's a problem there, but you are pretty much just talking in essentialisms of women as meek malleable creatures. I definitely agree there is a problem with a lot of organisational structures (and I think tyranny of structurelessness pretty much nailed it) but I don't like this whole idea that gender imbalances are solved by white, hetrosexual men (the people you mentioned) handing down different structures to raise up the women who have been 'socialised to follow and be submissive to men'... which is a really fucking patronising view. women are perfectly capable of asserting themselves without your charity.

I just don't get these blanket assumptions about weak, submissive females, none of which has any relevance to the women I know.

[Искра]

I agree with 9. Revleft means nothing. There are a lot of female activists (or whatever) irl. I came from quite a big organisation (for todays conditions) where it was almost 50:50 when it comes to male/female "forces". Right now I work on student movements project where there's a lot of female activists and they are all in charge. Also, I'm working on a forming of Left Communist group and, wow, we have a female members. And yeah, from my experiance, and from contacts with real life anarchists (mostly) organisations, they were all full of women. Now, I don't see why are people so suprised to see women in political (leftist or communist) organisations? Don't you see them on the streets, in your school or at work? Well, they have same problems as you do so they probably have simmilar reasons to participate in certain groups... Also, cut the crap with this picture of woman you have in your head. They are not scared creatures which cry in your kitchen and play with Barbie dolls...

ps. If I was a women, male feminists would discourage me from life... not politics.

[Hiero]

I mean, I guess it would be helpful for the whole discussion if we defined what precisely was meant by 'politics'? Are we talking about ruling class politics, communist politics, mainstream liberal politics....? politics in general? or what?

That is what I was going to say. For instance the union I belong to covers predominently feminized work, so my experience of unionism which is a form of politics involves women.


The reason is patriarchy. Women are socialised to follow and be submissive to men.

This is enterily a backward way of thinking. If a group is socialised to be submissive, it would be wrong to assume they are submissive. People are not empty passive containers of hegonmoic ideaology. Subaltern (a wider concept here to refer to people outside of hegemonic catergories) do engage in politics in daily life and in more structure forms. What some paternalistic people strangely do is see the image of say a barbie and say "society wants women to be barbie, women are barbies".

An ethnic example which is more revealing for its paternalism is to say "Why are Black people stupid?" "Because society wants Black people to be stupid".

It further positions subaltern people as helpless, their oppression is so extreme and total that they can not save themselves or even recgonise oppression itself. It then creates the belief in some people's minds that people closer to the hegenomic structures have to re-structure old patriarchal organisations. Subatern people are not believed to have emancipatory power, but must fall into predominently hegenomic political structures.

General Strike's post is a perfect example of the paternalism rife in so call 'socialist politics'. It never occured to General Strike that the women are making tea, because they think 'socialist organisations' are an absolute waste of time or inept. They may engage in political more practical and relevant forms of politics through other discourses. It never occurs to him that subaltern people see more clearly what is a useless and choose not attend socialists organisations not out of submission but intellect.

[Igor]

In northern europe, most parliaments have about 50/50 gender ratio, as do national cabinets. Some political groups, like greens here, are clearly dominated by females, and they're pretty visible in all leftist organizations here. I get that the locker room effect can and is a very serious problem, but there is no universal factors keeping women out of politics, not even under capitalism.

[Veovis]

If you go to a meeting of a socialist organisation chances are men will do most of the talking and if there are any women there (and yes it is an IF!) then commonly they'll be quiet, possibly making cups of tea.

Are you being serious? At my meetings, despite there being more men than women, I find that it's often the women who contribute more to discussion.

[Искра]

I find that it's often the women who contribute more to discussion.Oh, what a shocker... because I really tought that sex is so important for someone to contribute to discussion. Should we now clap our hands? :rolleyes:

[Veovis]

Oh, what a shocker... because I really tought that sex is so important for someone to contribute to discussion. Should we now clap our hands? :rolleyes:

I said often, not always. Feel better?

[Franz Fanonipants]

patriarchy

[manic expression]

The reason is patriarchy. Women are socialised to follow and be submissive to men.
Not really...women are quite signally un-submissive in a great many, probably most, cultures.

[the last donut of the night]

I will say it first: Because women are not as dishonest as men.

this statement is one of the many reasons why women are discouraged from politics

[Os Cangaceiros]

I pretty much agree with what 9, Kontra and Igor have said. From my own anecdotal experiences through interaction with some left-wing groups/scenes, there really isn't much a gender gap at all. And I think that the experiences of Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton prove that women politicans really do have as little shame as men do.

[X5N]

In northern europe, most parliaments have about 50/50 gender ratio, as do national cabinets. Some political groups, like greens here, are clearly dominated by females, and they're pretty visible in all leftist organizations here. I get that the locker room effect can and is a very serious problem, but there is no universal factors keeping women out of politics, not even under capitalism.

That's what led me to ask. I was trying to find a way to make sense of it all -- why the Swedish legislature and the Finnish cabinet are almost equally divided between men and women, while the legislatures of France or the U.S. only have a small percentage of women. I wasn't sure if it was a cultural thing, or...

[Bronco]

Well I don't know what the case is in the rest of the world but in the UK there's only 145 female MPs compared to 504 males, and I think more males study politics at University than females although take that with a pinch of salt, so there must be something preventing/discouraging woman from partaking in politics at a Parliamentary level anyway

From personal experience though, I haven't seen any great noticeable difference between the number of men and women who take an interest in politics

Edit - Just seen Igor's post saying it's 50/50 in most northern European parliaments, that's interesting

[NoPasaran1936]

System hates women, makes us men view women as personal items. And personal items that remain in the household.

[Hiero]

Well I don't know what the case is in the rest of the world but in the UK there's only 145 female MPs compared to 504 males, and I think more males study politics at University than females although take that with a pinch of salt, so there must be something preventing/discouraging woman from partaking in politics at a Parliamentary level anyway

With the dominant form of 'politics' such as parliament you will probably find studying politics is not neccassary for being involved in parliamentary politics. Major political parties, at least in Australia, choose members of their parties to stand for populist reasons. In Australia alot of politicians are often lawyers, trade unionist, teachers, buisness graduates and so on.


System hates women, makes us men view women as personal items. And personal items that remain in the household.

And it would just as sexist to believe that they remain in the household. But there are different images for different women, based on their sexuality, class, ethnicity, language etc. For instance I find from current US pop culture images that hispanic working class women are all engaging in low paid cleaning work, how does that fit with your narrative? On the opposite end, say from the Modern Family series, I see white working class women as being stay home mothers. The interesting thing, in the second narrative the white stay home mother is shown to have more freedom politically, economically and socially then the first one.

[Luís Henrique]

this statement is one of the many reasons why women are discouraged from politics

Indeed, it is one of the many reasons because everybody is discouraged from politics.

... it's a dirty thing, children; so leave it to us, who are already corrupt, and keep your innocence. While we keep your unpaid labour.

Luís Henrique

[human strike]

pardon? I don't know what meetings you have been going to but (for my sins) I've been to plenty and I've never seen the women 'quiet' and 'making cups of tea'. this seems a ridiculous caricature of... well I'm not even sure what.

for sure it is often men that seek to dominate the speaking (although I think this is also down to leftist personality types) and there's a problem there, but you are pretty much just talking in essentialisms of women as meek malleable creatures. I definitely agree there is a problem with a lot of organisational structures (and I think tyranny of structurelessness pretty much nailed it) but I don't like this whole idea that gender imbalances are solved by white, hetrosexual men (the people you mentioned) handing down different structures to raise up the women who have been 'socialised to follow and be submissive to men'... which is a really fucking patronising view. women are perfectly capable of asserting themselves without your charity.

I just don't get these blanket assumptions about weak, submissive females, none of which has any relevance to the women I know.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting all the meetings I go to are like that - plenty aren't - but far far too many are. I can think of specific meetings where this is very much the case - usually organised by Trots and trade unionists. Of course I am generalising, can't really talk about something as general as "politics" in any other way. I don't consider what I said to be either patronising nor charitable. If you took my "we" (for some reason) to mean white heterosexual men, then you are greatly mistaken - I meant "we" as in "politically" engaged people.


That is what I was going to say. For instance the union I belong to covers predominently feminized work, so my experience of unionism which is a form of politics involves women.



This is enterily a backward way of thinking. If a group is socialised to be submissive, it would be wrong to assume they are submissive. People are not empty passive containers of hegonmoic ideaology. Subaltern (a wider concept here to refer to people outside of hegemonic catergories) do engage in politics in daily life and in more structure forms. What some paternalistic people strangely do is see the image of say a barbie and say "society wants women to be barbie, women are barbies".

An ethnic example which is more revealing for its paternalism is to say "Why are Black people stupid?" "Because society wants Black people to be stupid".

It further positions subaltern people as helpless, their oppression is so extreme and total that they can not save themselves or even recgonise oppression itself. It then creates the belief in some people's minds that people closer to the hegenomic structures have to re-structure old patriarchal organisations. Subatern people are not believed to have emancipatory power, but must fall into predominently hegenomic political structures.

General Strike's post is a perfect example of the paternalism rife in so call 'socialist politics'. It never occured to General Strike that the women are making tea, because they think 'socialist organisations' are an absolute waste of time or inept. They may engage in political more practical and relevant forms of politics through other discourses. It never occurs to him that subaltern people see more clearly what is a useless and choose not attend socialists organisations not out of submission but intellect.

Actually, it absolutely occurred to me, someone who is autonomist, anti-political and anti-organisations. I answered the question that was actually asked. /shrugs

[Ocean Seal]

Okay really quick.

1.) In order to run for office you need a fuck ton of money. The ruling class is a boy's club.
2.) Historical Precedent (also the reason why women are seen as weak and other stupid shit)