It's Not "The Year of the Woman"

It was a widely held belief that 2016 would be “The Year of the Woman”; the year in which the White House would finally have a female president, the year in which the glass ceiling would be shattered. However, this year of female empowerment and change for gender equality was postponed, and then postponed again. People asked will 2018 be the new “Year of the Woman”? In reality, the process of women coming into politics and making changes to public policies is a work in progress, and it will take more than a year and a few marches to change attitudes and laws which have been present in the minds of the members of societies since the beginning of time. A conscious effort must be made to increase the number of women in the legislature, but it is a question of “in what way?” that remains unanswered. There are many problems with past and present approaches to the low representation of women in government, problems which need to be eradicated before we can ever hope to reach a real democracy in which gender roles do not affect how our world is run. Proposed here, is the idea that forcing women into a pre-existing system is not beneficial to them, or to society. Instead, the changing or possible creation of a new system must take place, in order that authentic, effective and legitimate inclusion of women in politics can occur.

Gender is defined as “the state of being male or female...used with reference to social and cultural differences”. This is to say that the social and cultural differences in gender are separate from the biological differences. For example, the obvious differences between men and women’s reproductive systems should not play into their treatment in a marriage or workplace. Of course, each society has their own cultural normalities and standards, but the idea that males and females should be treated as equals has been an ever-growing conversation in the last few decades.

According to the 2010 census, there are 157 million women in the USA, and 152 million men. However, in the same year, it was recorded that only 24.5% of legislative seats were held by women. Of course, this shows a positive trend as this figure was as low as 15% in the 1970s. However, this still does not explain, in a country as modernized and progressive as the United States of America, how the ratio of women to men in positions of political power is so low.

There are many rational reasons to include women in politics. Gwen K Young, director of Women in Public Service Project writes of a few. She explains that making women leaders assures that money and resources are distributed fairly. She says: “female leaders typically have more compassion and empathy, and a more open and inclusive negotiation style...modern ideas of transformative leadership are more in line with qualities women generally share: empathy, inclusiveness and an open negotiation style.” This is not to say that men should not be included in politics, or even that all women are suited for the job, but merely that the thoughts and changes that they can bring to the table can be beneficial to society.

Having more women in the legislature shapes both policies related to gender, and on the larger structure of democracy. Women tend to have more liberal ideas than men, and use their liberal attitudes to prioritise different policies to men. When more women are present in office, the stereotypes of women are changed (both in internal attitudes, and external conversations). Furthermore, because of these changing attitudes and conversations, more laws benefiting women, children and families are passed while many women are in the legislature. This changes the nature of any democracy in which women have a substantial presence.

Young gives some specific examples of areas of politics in which women have had a positive impact. She says: “In developing nations, having women at the table impacts how policy resources are spent -- either through gender budgeting efforts or simply, such as in the case of climate change, showing how women in the developing world experience issues differently than men. The involvement of women in the climate movement, for example, has led to better policy making and spurred solutions like clean solar cookstoves. Women's leadership also helps drive direct change in structural policies including parental leave, child care and pay.” From Young’s article, it is evident that women simply provide a different angle and perspective to men. This allows change to reach aspects of life that men may not consider as their typical biological disposition does not require them to. This appears to be a crucial enough reason to include women in politics in the same proportion as men, illustrating that their role in policy creation is just as important as men’s.

Finally, having women as figureheads in politics drives a change in attitudes, and influences the younger generations, ensuring that women in politics becomes social normality by the time they reach the workforce. This will allow the progress of gender equality to happen organically, and the shift in attitudes towards women less difficult.

When comparing countries with different percentages of female representation in government, it is important to understand that a number of factors contribute to the trends in these figures. What makes one country able to reach a more level ratio than another? And are these trends strong enough to allow us to have a laissez-faire approach to the problem of the underrepresentation of women in government? There are three main avenues by which these trends can be analysed: governmental and electoral structures, economic growth, and the education and urbanization of a nation.

In terms of elections, the type of election process must be considered. The type of election that maximises the probability of women serving in office is called proportional representation. This type of election ensures that even the smallest minority groups have the chance to have seats in a government. The issue we see here is the lack of combination of this technical “representation” with participation and legitimacy. In other words, just because a government includes women, it does not mean that they necessarily participate in debate, make changes, or that their power or opinions are viewed as legitimate by their male counterparts. In addition to this, many countries have begun to enforce “quotas”, which are effectively laws which force a certain percentage of the legislature to be female. This will obviously increase and maintain the number of women in office, but again, does not fix this triangular problem of representation, participation, and legitimacy. Analysing this data demonstrates that a simple governmental structure or process is not strong enough to change the attitudes of the people running them. The root of the problem is in the minds of the people, and not in the systems we run.

Money has a big effect on the attitudes of the citizen, and in many societies improves the female to male office seats ratio. Wealthier societies tend to see more liberal attitudes about gender roles (this is demonstrated by both women and men). Arguably, this is because money leads to freedom as governments can step back and take a more “relaxed” role in controlling the institutions of their nations. In poorer societies, traditional values are kept in tact and women are not encouraged to join the workforce, let alone politics, but are instead willed to stay at home and focus on children and family. This can be clearly seen throughout history. After World War I, Germany’s economy had hit rock bottom as the country relied on loans and struggled to rebuild itself after losing the war. Hitler entered the scene and took control of everything, which included enforced gender roles by way of education. This kind of control was accepted into a society which had lost all hope of reaching the same level of prosperity it had had prior to the war. Therefore, traditional gender roles were encouraged and embraced by a nation, leading to a totally male-run government. In contrast, there are some societies who put no emphasis on gender equality, despite their high GDPs. For example, the United Arab Emirates has a GDP per capita of 37,622.21, while their gender gap index is about 0.64. These kinds of statistics call on us to consider other factors which contribute to female representation in government and overall in society hence voiding the trend which we see between high GDP and high percentage of female representation.

Finally, in urbanised and educated societies, the presence of women in office is often higher. In educated societies, there is more emphasis on educating the entirety of the population - i.e. men and women. With more educated women, the chance that they will be educated enough to participate in government increases. Furthermore, the chance that their male counterparts will respect their level of education and intelligence will naturally increase. In more urbanised societies, women tend to have higher representation in politics. This is because women have easier access to opportunities to contribute to decision-making in cities. This ties in with education also, as more rural societies are less likely to emphasise education in general, and certainly the equal education of the sexes. Here, we see the only trend which is represented in almost all countries I have found to have high percentage of women in the legislature. Could it be that starting the promotion of female empowerment from as young as four years old could be the change which we wish to see in the world?

There are many obstacles which women must overcome before entering politics. The Inter-Parliamentary Union lists five factors which they believe deter women from entering into political careers: domestic responsibilities, attitudes towards the roles of women in society, lack of support from family, lack of confidence, and lack of finance. These factors appear to be vastly different from the reasons that men have to avoid careers in office - such as “lack of support from the electorate” or “lack of experience in “representative functions”: public speaking, constituency relations”. The barriers which women face appear to be more “baseline”, and more importantly, uncontrollable and pre-existing conditions of society. By the time women reach their desired careers, they may be unable to enter their desired places of work, and could be forced to fight for a change before even combatting the real challenges of the workforce.

As aforementioned, many countries have demonstrated their commitment to changing the male to female ratio of their governments by imposing “quotas”. This is an effective way of increasing the number of women in power, however, quotas are not doing much more than simply improving the statistics. Gender quota laws set aside a certain proportion of candidacies or legislative seats for women. This means that some countries will have a higher percentage of women in the legislature due to these laws. On the surface, this law appears to be a step forward for womankind, a glimmer of hope for a more equal future. However, there are many problems with enforcing something which has been so unnatural in the past. Considering that women didn’t even obtain suffrage in the West until the 1920s, there can be no expectation that the thousands of years of female oppression can be forgotten, and the attitudes towards women totally eliminated just a century later.

Women find the idea of quotas condescending, arguing that being elected to help to run a country should be based on merit, not gender. Derek J Byrne, writer for the Irish Times explains: “Not a situation, I would argue, that any self-respecting female would want to comply with and not one that encourages confidence in any government in these difficult times.” With a quota law in place, the motivations and authenticity behind the election of a woman would never be 100 percent clear or guaranteed. Politics, whether they are on a global scale, or a personal scale, have the potential to liken a school playground. It could be suggested that if women want to have a chance to be in politics, they have to accept that changing thousands of years of attitudes is going to take more than one electoral law. Furthermore, even with all of this effort to include women in politics, who is to say that the appointed women are the best people for the job? This illustrates how important it is to begin the sculpting of the youngest minds to normalise female politicians to influence later generations in a more organic way.

The introduction of gender quotas showed that a certain degree of democracy was being compromised in order to reach what we deem to be a “fair” democratic system. The very nature of democracy promises that results of elections remain in the hands of the citizens, and this was tampered with by the first gender quota pass in Argentina in 1991. In his Second Treatise on Government, John Locke stated that while men are and should be independent and free, being part of a community means giving up some of that freedom for the greater good: “it is necessary the Body should move the way whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority: or else it is impossible it should act or continue one Body”. While I agree that democracy should be preserved, I also believe that certain attitudes and social constructs were only appropriate for a particular moment in time, and those who attempt to hinder progression, must be forced to accept change and give consent for it.

All research on trends lead to the conclusion that if we hope to someday reach a 50:50 ratio of female to male seats in government, seats which are legitimate and effective, the groundwork needs to be just as strong. In order to change the age old attitudes which have led to low percentages of female representation worldwide, it is crucial that we start with education the young from as young as four years old. The idea is to introduce the next generation to a world in which there is equal opportunity for all - no radical feminists or man-bashing, no backlash from these defensive men, no questions asked. The desired result is that women in politics, or indeed in any position of power, should not be viewed as any more remarkable than men. Male and female biological differences cause basic characteristic differences also. While not grounds to keep the latter gender from being in office, these differences can not be ignored. This may seem counterintuitive to female empowerment, but it is the only way that men and women will be viewed as truly equal.

Helena Morrissey came to my all-girls high school to speak a few years ago. She is well-known in England as one of the most successful women of her time. With nine children and a flourishing career, she has a realistic perspective on the balance between work and family life, and the politics which surrounds females in positions of leadership in the 21st century. In her book A Good Time to Be a Girl, she illustrates her position on the 30% club, her proposal which spread like rapidfire. Morrissey had constructed a way in which to eliminate quotas in companies, without eliminating the women it introduced to power within them. Her solution to the imbalance of the genders in the workplace takes both soft and hard approaches. Her program insists that a 30% female representation should be met, but gives boards of companies a free choice whether to take it on. This is the effective approach that politics is missing. By putting a hard and fast quota on an entire nation, we create an artificial, forced, immovable control on elections, and by not enforcing a quota, the fear is that we will fail to change anything.

Morrissey argues that shoe-horning women into a male system is where we are going wrong. This is exactly what political gender quotas do. They force women into a system which they did not originally belong. An article which reviews Morrissey’s book says: “Why, Morrissey asks, should women “lean in” to an old-fashioned patriarchal system that’s no longer fit for purpose, when we could change the system instead? Women shouldn’t have to copy men to get on but should be free to succeed in their own way, perhaps working more flexibly (when Morrissey ran her own investment management company, she offered a four-day week to anyone who wanted it) or managing more creatively or just approaching issues differently.” It is hardly surprising that women cannot exercise legitimacy of their power once in these male dominated systems, because these were systems set up by men in the first place. Her premise is the “change the system”, instead of trying to bulldoze through it, as valiant as that may feel.

This valiant approach to creating equal opportunity actually creates a larger gender gap. Morrissey comments on this also, and her reviewers say “And all of that is a refreshing change from the niggling cult of female self-improvement, which starts from the premise that women are probably doing it all wrong...Just do what suits you and stop worrying.” It often feels as if the more women collectively push for change, the more resistance they receive from men. Morrissey almost suggests that we take a step back, and stop forcing females to “self improve”. It is, after all, the argument of any feminist that we are equal to men, and therefore should feel no need to improve. The softer approach to increasing the percentage of women in politics would be more effective, as it would combine female and male power in the efforts to provide equal opportunity for all.

So far, Morrissey’s approach appears to be perfect. However, she describes one flaw in her 30% Club plan: “The experience showed me rather painfully and personally that we had only reached the point where diversity of thought was welcome in theory; much less so in practice. I could see that my view made many people, including friends, feel very uncomfortable and even angry.” She had seen how boards would hire “diverse” faces, without respecting any new opinions. This shows that her combined soft and hard approaches didn’t reach the success she had hoped. To remedy this, I would argue again that young people must be influenced from a young age, to view the sexes (and of course, races, sexual orientations etc) equally. The barrier Morrissey had to reaching an effective plan was her age, and her “late-to-the-game” timing. She had a wonderful plan, but it was not implemented quickly enough, and now we have feminists running their free-the-nipple signs all over town after they have felt so politically oppressed as young girls.

There is a solution to this problem, which lays the foundation for a future generation of strong women and men, who all truly believe that they have equal opportunity to obtain and maintain positions of power. There should be a stage of children’s academic careers in which they are taught separately. Between the ages of twelve and sixteen, boys and girls are on totally different planes, and would therefore thrive in environments which cater to their genders. For example, researchers have concluded that “boys and girls have differences at the academic level. Boys perform better on visual tasks, but are more likely to have learning disabilities. Girls are able to concentrate and pay attention for longer periods of time.” This demonstrates a key difference in the way in which girls and boys should be taught: twelve to sixteen year old boys need more physical activity prior to lessons in order to remain focused in class. Without this kind of energy release, boys can become easily distracted and create a learning environment in which girls do not thrive. Furthermore, girls’ emotional development tends to happen in the earlier teenage years, while most boys’ do not develop emotionally until their later teen years. Boys are inherently less conscientious of others feelings when they are young. So imagine this: a co-ed classroom in which the boys have not been given enough time for physical activity, are distracted, and shout girls down during class. In contrast, in an environment in which girls have the ability to speak out, they will quickly learn how to be confident in their own ideas - something which may not be possible in a co-ed environment. It appears that the natural choice would be to keep the sexes separate during these years to allow girls and boys to learn their own potential without the restrictions that the other gender presence may cause.

As aforementioned, Helena Morrissey presents an idea of “changing the system”. There are many ways in which we could alter education to increase the percentage of women in legislature. Take mandatory classes as an example. American History is a mandatory high school class in America. However, due to traditional social and cultural constructs, it is very rare to discuss women as part of this history until the topic of the suffragettes. This means that for five centuries, the history teacher is limited to talking about powerful males in America, leaving only one century, and most likely only a couple of weeks of lectures, to talk about influential women. It is hard to say whether insisting that more emphasis was put on women’s studies would make a difference, but with a changed approach to class material, we could potentially further the empowerment of young women and teach the importance of equal opportunity before “feminism” even becomes a conversation.

The “Year of the Woman” may not ever take place. And this may be a good sign. With the proposed plan to introduce girls to their own potentials at an early stage, they will be rewarded with a more natural tendency to take positions of power. Instead of forcing them into male-run systems with age-old traditional attitudes towards gender roles, they can be integrated into systems which have been developing since their own time in school. Setting groundwork such as this will allow the authentic, effective, and legitimate inclusion of women in the legislature.