British Parliament Passes Bill to Elect More Women
Philip Lewis
Proving the feminist war on men is not about equality of opportunity,
but rather imposition of advantage...
----------------------------------------------
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/816
15 February 2002
British Parliament Passes Bill to Elect More Women
By Paul Rodgers
WENews correspondent
[Faced with a shrinking percentage of women in the British Parliament,
lawmakers are searching for ways to redress the imbalance. A recent
bill would legalize a controversial approach: women-only slates.]
LONDON (WOMENSENEWS) - Confronted by the first drop in the number of
women elected to the House of Commons in 20 years, British lawmakers
have passed a bill to reinstate a previously banned election procedure
that favors female candidates for seats in Parliament.
The bill would allow Britain's political parties to mandate women-only
so-called shortlists--the lists of candidates for the House of Commons
put forth to party members in the British equivalent of primary
elections. A brief experiment with all-women shortlists in the
mid-1990s helped elect a record 120 women to the Commons in 1997, up
from 60 five years earlier. But by then the practice had already been
ruled illegal.
A law professor and disappointed office-seeker Peter Jepson
successfully challenged the women-only policy in an employment
tribunal in Leeds, northeast England; following last June's elections,
the number of women in the Commons slipped to 118 out of 659 members.
The bill, which received the support of all political parties and
moved rapidly through Parliament, revises British sex-discrimination
laws to allow the parties to impose forms of "positive discrimination"
that are illegal if practiced by private companies. It passed its
final vote in Parliament on Jan. 28 and now awaits only the assent of
the queen. Under a sunset clause in the bill, its provisions would
lapse in 2015, probably after three elections for Commons seats.
"When asked, 'Why not do more to reduce inequality in representation
of women and men in Parliament?' we have been able to hide behind the
Jepson case, which has cast a legal shadow over positive measures,"
said Stephen Byers MP, Secretary of State for Transport, Local
Government and the Regions. "But with this measure on the statute
book, there would be no hiding place for political parties."
Bill May Face Court Challenge from Male Office-Seeker
Candy Atherton, member of parliament for Falmouth and Camborne
constituency, is the first person ever selected off an all-woman
shortlist and one of the most vocal advocates of reinstating the
practice. "I wouldn't even have been called in for an interview if men
had been in the race," she said. "A couple of local men just assumed
they were going to get the nomination."
But Jepson prepared to take his party to court again, this time under
European Union law. "I'm not at odds with the Labour Party over the
inadequate representation of women in Parliament," he said. "But there
is nothing positive about discrimination."
He said his preferred solution is "twinning," in which two
constituencies combine to select a pair of candidates, one male, one
female. In 1999, twinning led to women winning 37 percent of the seats
in the Scottish Parliament and 41 percent of those in the Welsh
Assembly.
While offering no real opposition to the bill permitting women-only
shortlists, leaders of the opposition Conservative Party indicated
they would not implement the policy. Instead, they plan to create
training programs for women considering public office and to use
polling data to try to persuade local officials to back promising
women candidates.
"I can't imagine the Conservative Party going to women-only
shortlists," said Caroline Spelman member of parliament for Meriden,
and the Tory spokeswoman on international development and women's
affairs.
Anne Widdecombe MP, a defeated candidate for the leadership of the
Conservative Party who remains influential, said that a policy of
women-only shortlists would deny men's human rights and would be
patronizing and demeaning to women.
"It would create two groups of women MPs," she said, "one who could
look everyone from the prime minister down in the eye, and the other
that got there because of special favors. I wouldn't find that
helpful. I'd find it humiliating."
Britain and the United States Lag Behind in Electing Female Lawmakers
Widdecombe said she is confident that the gender balance in Parliament
will shift when the generation of women who grew up in the 1980s -
when 10 Downing Street seemed the exclusive property of Margaret
Thatcher - enter their 40s and 50s and start to move into politics.
But Byers said the Labour Party supported a more interventionist
approach to correct the longstanding imbalance of power. "Relying on
improvements to be made without direct intervention has been tried
before and has failed," he said. "It was that view that meant that in
1945 there were 24 women members of the House of Commons, and almost
40 years later in 1983, four years after the first female prime
minister was elected, there were 23 - hardly an encouraging statistic
that supports the argument for 'biding one's time.'"
Britain ranks 36th among world parliaments for the percentage of women
sitting in its lower house. Eighteen percent of its members are women,
according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union rankings, while the U.S.
House of Representatives ranks 49th with 14 percent, the global
average. At the top of the list of 179 countries are the Nordic and
Germanic states, with Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands,
Norway, Iceland and Germany taking the first seven spots.
In several Latin American countries, notably Argentina, parties are
required by law to meet a quota of women candidates. The 74th
amendment to India's Constitution in 1993 reserved a third of the
seats in village councils for women. In France, a law requiring that
women's names fill three out of every six slots on slates for
municipal office resulted in women winning nearly 48 percent of the
seats in city governments last summer.
Full equality may be on hold in Britain. Labor's national executive
committee announced on Jan. 30 that it would drop its goal of having
50-50 representation after the next election, aiming for 35 percent
instead.
"We still have an aspiration of 50 percent of women MPs, but you have
to be realistic about these things," a party spokesman said. "We would
have to have something like 140 MPs retire or die to get 50 percent at
the next election."
---
Paul Rodgers is a freelance Canadian journalist based in London. He
has written for The Economist, New Scientist, and The Independent,
among other publications.
---
For more information:
The Inter-Parliamentary Union: - http://www.ipu.org
Caroline Spelman MP: - http://www.carolinespelman.com
Peter Jepson: - http://www.peterjepson.com
Phil
The Adam & Eve story was about
the loss of "innocence" caused
by the emergence into sentience
of human beings.
Apples - food for thought!
(Len Firewood 2001)
rndthms
>
> fyi
> Proving the feminist war on men is not about equality of opportunity,
> but rather imposition of advantage...
I have an interesting thought. When discussing with the feminists which
sex is more oppressed, etc. they usually bring up the point of not having
as many female Congress members, etc. Another common argument is their
response to claims that only men are subject to military conscription,
and that men make up the majority of violence victims, which is that
it's "men doing it to themselves." If we are to take that response as
a refutation of these disadvantages, then we have to accept the logic
behind it: if something that group X suffers is group X's fault, it
doesn't count as a disadvantage or a form of oppression. Keeping that
in mind, let's go back to the original feminist point. Now, figures show
that women are just as likely to be elected for office when they run.
Thus, the reason that there aren't as many women in office as men is
because there aren't as many women running for office, therefore it is
women's fault and theirs only. In other words, it's women doing it to
other women. If we are to be consistent with our logic, then the lack
of women in legislative positions doesn't count as a disadvantage or
oppression. After all, it's women doing it to themselves.
Angilion
<phill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>fyi
>Proving the feminist war on men is not about equality of opportunity,
>but rather imposition of advantage...
>
>----------------------------------------------
>
>http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/816
>
>15 February 2002
>
>British Parliament Passes Bill to Elect More Women
>By Paul Rodgers
>WENews correspondent
>
>[Faced with a shrinking percentage of women in the British Parliament,
>lawmakers are searching for ways to redress the imbalance. A recent
>bill would legalize a controversial approach: women-only slates.]
>
>LONDON (WOMENSENEWS) - Confronted by the first drop in the number of
>women elected to the House of Commons in 20 years, British lawmakers
>have passed a bill to reinstate a previously banned election procedure
>that favors female candidates for seats in Parliament.
It's worth noting that the drop occurred only because large numbers
of women were simply given seats they hadn't earned in the last
election. Some of those women have quit for various reasons and there
aren't enough women who want the job to replace those who have left unless
men are explicitly barred from even trying for the seat. Which is
precisely what has now happened. The drop was also just 2
MPs, from a total of 659.
How long will it be before disenfranchising men is on the cards?
I'm listening for the feminist opposition to this blatant sexism. People
are being denied even the chance to serve in Parliament, solely
because of their sex. It would be hard to be more sexist. Since
feminism is about sexual equality, feminists will obviously be
strenuously objecting to this law.
Oh, wait. It's a feminist law, not just supported by mainstream
feminism but actively advocated by mainstream feminism, along
with almost all on the non-mainstream. Those feminists who object
do so only because they think it will have a negative effect on
women.
Hmm...perhaps feminism isn't about sexual equality at all. Who
would have thought it?
[..]
--
Always remember you're unique.
Just like everyone else. (Anon)
Sky King
angi...@ypical.fsnet.co.uk says...
appoint a woman for that position?!!! What a bunch of fucking losers.
sky
White~Dragon ® WD40
What ever happens in England usually winds up in the US too.
~wd
"Philip Lewis" <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a4v6go$3ebj8$1...@ID-59530.news.dfncis.de...
Michael Snyder
>
> fyi
> Proving the feminist war on men is not about equality of opportunity,
> but rather imposition of advantage...
Right -- equality of outcome, not of opportunity. No one questions that
women have the same opportunity to run for office. They want to make
sure
that an equal number of women is ELECTED, even if fewer women RUN.
So in theory, if there were 100 seats and only 50 women ran, there
would be no choice except to elect all 50 of those women.
Philip Lewis
"White~Dragon ® WD40" <serv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u7860ro...@corp.supernews.com...
> I wish the britts would stop this kinda crap.
> What ever happens in England usually winds up in the US too.
...and visa versa sad to say!
Phil
GodEvolved
How Evilly Male Patriarchal(tm) of you! <applause>
>
--
-----------------
Archbishop of the Church of the Holy Cabbage
Lettuce Pray
-----------------
GodEvolved
news:3c73b620...@news.freeserve.net:
I am beginning to suspect that feminism *is* about "sexual" equality, but
that's only where it starts. In all other areas, it's "more for women".
>
> Oh, wait. It's a feminist law, not just supported by mainstream
> feminism but actively advocated by mainstream feminism, along
> with almost all on the non-mainstream. Those feminists who object
> do so only because they think it will have a negative effect on
> women.
>
> Hmm...perhaps feminism isn't about sexual equality at all. Who
> would have thought it?
>
> [..]
>
--
GodEvolved
news:MPG.16dd985ec...@news2.news.adelphia.net:
And just think! These people are the USA's biggest and strongest European
military ally. Bwahahahaha!
C.V. Compton Shaw
INDIVIDUAL rights and INDIVIDUAL liberties. Concomitant with that should be
the equitable proposition that citizen rights and responsibilities are
interrelated such that groups and/or individuals which refuse to burden
themselves with the same responsibilities of citizenship should not have the
same rights as those that do consent to the same. Governments that do not do
the same, as is the case for the British and other governments (including the
US government) are not a legitimate governments. The same is the case for the
US government which grants privileges to females while, at the same time,
requiring males to undertake significantly more of the responsibilities of
citizenship. Human nature is not such that you can expect the best of most
people. As a result, confrontation is often necessary to preserve individual
rights and liberties.
Angilion
wrote:
>Philip Lewis wrote:
>>
>> fyi
>> Proving the feminist war on men is not about equality of opportunity,
>> but rather imposition of advantage...
>
>Right -- equality of outcome, not of opportunity. No one questions that
>women have the same opportunity to run for office. They want to make
>sure
>that an equal number of women is ELECTED, even if fewer women RUN.
>So in theory, if there were 100 seats and only 50 women ran, there
>would be no choice except to elect all 50 of those women.
Elect? Where do you get "elect"? from. The women are simply
given the seats for being women. That's the whole point.
It's not even about equality of outcome. There's nothing to stop
a party from completely forbidding men to be even candidates
for MPs in *all* seats. It's about more for women. There's no
end to "more".
It's undoubtably just the start. There are many laws that were
intended to prevent discrimination against women, but which
had to be written in a sex-neutral manner for political reasons.
Now that feminists have managed to get one of the most
important such laws not merely changed to explicitly protect
women only but to actively discriminate against men, why on
earth would it stop with just that one law?
Angilion
<phill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"White~Dragon ® WD40" <serv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:u7860ro...@corp.supernews.com...
>> I wish the britts would stop this kinda crap.
>> What ever happens in England usually winds up in the US too.
Britain != England.
>...and visa versa sad to say!
The two countries have a long tradition of eagerly taking on the worst
of each other's cultures. Weird, isn't it?
Jessy.00000101.00111100.00000011
"Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
news:3C741D61...@redhat.com...
> Philip Lewis wrote:
> >
> > fyi
> > Proving the feminist war on men is not about equality of opportunity,
> > but rather imposition of advantage...
>
> Right -- equality of outcome, not of opportunity. No one questions that
> women have the same opportunity to run for office. They want to make
> sure
> that an equal number of women is ELECTED, even if fewer women RUN.
> So in theory, if there were 100 seats and only 50 women ran, there
> would be no choice except to elect all 50 of those women.
What a farce. Doesn't anyone think anymore? People like Liz would attempt
to stop us from pointing this shit out.
The White~Dragon ®
"Angilion" <angi...@ypical.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3c746ae9...@news.freeserve.net...
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 00:18:40 -0000, "Philip Lewis"
> <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"White~Dragon ® WD40" <serv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:u7860ro...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> I wish the britts would stop this kinda crap.
> >> What ever happens in England usually winds up in the US too.
>
> Britain != England.
>
> >...and visa versa sad to say!
>
> The two countries have a long tradition of eagerly taking on the worst
> of each other's cultures. Weird, isn't it?
Yeah
Philip Lewis
> <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"White~Dragon ® WD40" <serv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:u7860ro...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> I wish the britts would stop this kinda crap.
> >> What ever happens in England usually winds up in the US too.
>
> Britain != England.
That is strictly true - although the demarkation is somewhat muddied by the
fact that we DO have MP's(by that I mean they hold seats in those countries
irrespective of their own nationality and also have voting rights in the
English parliament) in the English parliament from Scotland,Wales and
Nothern Ireland
>
> >...and visa versa sad to say!
>
> The two countries have a long tradition of eagerly taking on the worst
> of each other's cultures. Weird, isn't it?
Weird maybe - but rather than a "coincidence" it is merely the work of
international feminism.
Phil
john
dad
"Sky King" <m...@home.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.16dd985ec...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
Sky King
m...@home.net says...
Angilion
>In article <MPG.16dd985ec...@news2.news.adelphia.net>,
>m...@home.net says...
[..]
>> So if you can't win at the ballot box throw out the election and just
>> appoint a woman for that position?!!! What a bunch of fucking losers.
>> sky
Not quite true. The idea is to find seats that your party is going to
win and not allow any man to be your candidate there, or even
apply to be your candidate. Since most people vote for a party
rather than a candidate and most people don't care how much
men are discriminated against, it works. The election that is
thrown away is the one in which party members elect a candidate.
Oh, they might get to vote for one woman or another, but that's
no more a genuine election than one in which the electorate
get only to choose between candidates from the same party
and all other parties are forbidden to field candidates. It's a
rigged "election", that's all.
>They will probably try the same thing with their Military.
Strangely enough, the reverse applies. The British armed
forces used to use the usual antimale sexism, but they stopped
doing so about 3 years ago.
Michael Baker
make much of a difference here I am sad to say.
The feminists who are ignoring the human genetic wiring or blue print, will
have to step over my dead body before I relinquish my job.
"Jessy.00000101.00111100.00000011" <evilinco...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:ct0d8.13825$UE.2...@read1.cgocable.net...
Sky King
angi...@ypical.fsnet.co.uk says...
They just tried to let women in the Royal Marines but the women could
not hang. sky
>
Angilion
>In article <3c77ec66...@news.freeserve.net>,
>angi...@ypical.fsnet.co.uk says...
>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:52:44 GMT, Sky King <m...@home.net> wrote:
[..]
>> >They will probably try the same thing with their Military.
>>
>> Strangely enough, the reverse applies. The British armed
>> forces used to use the usual antimale sexism, but they stopped
>> doing so about 3 years ago.
>
>They just tried to let women in the Royal Marines but the women could
>not hang. sky
There's insufficient data, really.
Just 3 women attempted the Royal Marines All Arms course, which
allows soldiers from other branches of the military to prove that they
have attained the standards of the Royal Marines. AFAIK, soldiers
who do so are entitled to wear the beret of the Royal Marines even
though they are not actually in the Royal Marines, because they have
attained the required standard.
Of those three women, two dropped out early in the course. One
lasted the entire course and failed only on the last stage, which
tests the soldier's ability to survive in the wild. Yes, I do mean that
she passed the tests of physical ability. For a commando unit. She
could probably pass it on a second attempt, which is normally
allowed (you can make an attempt every year). The recent
changes may prevent her from having a second attempt, solely
because of her sex.
There is a very high failure rate on that course, because of the
extremely high standards. *Most* people fail it or drop out
because they acknowledge they will not be able to pass it.
Three women is not a sufficiently large sample size from which
to make conclusions.
Malcolm
Angilion writes
[snipped]
>
>Just 3 women attempted the Royal Marines All Arms course, which
>allows soldiers from other branches of the military to prove that they
>have attained the standards of the Royal Marines. AFAIK, soldiers
>who do so are entitled to wear the beret of the Royal Marines even
>though they are not actually in the Royal Marines, because they have
>attained the required standard.
To be more precise they are, as I understand it, entitled to wear the
green beret but with their own regimental badge.
>
--
Regards
Malcolm
www.tosd.demon.co.uk - HMS SOLEBAY and Battle class website.
I love to cook with wine: sometimes I even put it in the food.
Sky King
says...
> In article <3c793877...@news.freeserve.net> Sun, 24 Feb 2002,
> Angilion writes
> [snipped]
> >
> >Just 3 women attempted the Royal Marines All Arms course, which
> >allows soldiers from other branches of the military to prove that they
> >have attained the standards of the Royal Marines. AFAIK, soldiers
> >who do so are entitled to wear the beret of the Royal Marines even
> >though they are not actually in the Royal Marines, because they have
> >attained the required standard.
No woman has passed the standards to become Royal Marines. sky
Sky King
angi...@ypical.fsnet.co.uk says...
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:29:23 GMT, Sky King <m...@home.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <3c77ec66...@news.freeserve.net>,
> >angi...@ypical.fsnet.co.uk says...
> >> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:52:44 GMT, Sky King <m...@home.net> wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> >They will probably try the same thing with their Military.
> >>
> >> Strangely enough, the reverse applies. The British armed
> >> forces used to use the usual antimale sexism, but they stopped
> >> doing so about 3 years ago.
> >
> >They just tried to let women in the Royal Marines but the women could
> >not hang. sky
>
> There's insufficient data, really.
>
> Just 3 women attempted the Royal Marines All Arms course, which
> allows soldiers from other branches of the military to prove that they
> have attained the standards of the Royal Marines. AFAIK, soldiers
> who do so are entitled to wear the beret of the Royal Marines even
> though they are not actually in the Royal Marines, because they have
> attained the required standard.
>
> Of those three women, two dropped out early in the course. One
> lasted the entire course and failed only on the last stage, which
> tests the soldier's ability to survive in the wild. Yes, I do mean that
> she passed the tests of physical ability.
Cites? It is not what I read. sky
For a commando unit. She
> could probably pass it on a second attempt, which is normally
> allowed (you can make an attempt every year). The recent
> changes may prevent her from having a second attempt, solely
> because of her sex.
Nope. Solely because of her performance. sky
>
> There is a very high failure rate on that course, because of the
> extremely high standards. *Most* people fail it or drop out
> because they acknowledge they will not be able to pass it.
> Three women is not a sufficiently large sample size from which
> to make conclusions.
>
> We already have that data from other areas where they tried and failed. sky
Stephen Shepherd
Sky King wrote:
> In article <8Cf+xSAU$fe8...@tosd.demon.co.uk>, mal...@tosd.demon.co.uk
> says...
> > In article <3c793877...@news.freeserve.net> Sun, 24 Feb 2002,
> > Angilion writes
> > [snipped]
> > >
> > >Just 3 women attempted the Royal Marines All Arms course, which
> > >allows soldiers from other branches of the military to prove that they
> > >have attained the standards of the Royal Marines. AFAIK, soldiers
> > >who do so are entitled to wear the beret of the Royal Marines even
> > >though they are not actually in the Royal Marines, because they have
> > >attained the required standard.
>
> No woman has passed the standards to become Royal Marines. sky
>
Well, I don't think any women has currently passed the All Arms/Commando
course. However, women are serving in the Royal Marines as members of the
Royal Marine Band Service. In times of tension "Royal Marines Musicians and
Buglers are trained for a specific military role. Royal Marines Bands were
involved in both the Falklands conflict and Operation Granby in the Persian
Gulf. In the latter part of 1998, Scotland band were deployed in HMS OCEAN
and assisted in relief work in Nicaragua and Honduras in the aftermath of
Hurricane Mitch." (RN/RM website). That military role used to be stretcher
bearer, but they may have additional medical training nowadays.
Sky King
says...
Ian
> Proving the feminist war on men is not about equality of opportunity,
> but rather imposition of advantage...
I agree, but the title should be ...
"New Labour passes bill to discriminate against men!"
I don't think the Lib Dems, or Tories had anything to do with it.
Angilion
>"Philip Lewis" <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<a4v6go$3ebj8$1...@ID-59530.news.dfncis.de>...
>> fyi
>> Proving the feminist war on men is not about equality of opportunity,
>> but rather imposition of advantage...
>
>I agree, but the title should be ...
>"New Labour passes bill to discriminate against men!"
>I don't think the Lib Dems, or Tories had anything to do with it.
Neither opposed it. Not that it would have made any
difference if they had opposed it, since the Labour Party is
the de facto Parliament due to its majority.
[..]
Ian
> On 27 Feb 2002 23:42:41 -0800, dra...@hotmail.com (Ian) wrote:
>
> >"Philip Lewis" <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<a4v6go$3ebj8$1...@ID-59530.news.dfncis.de>...
> >> fyi
> >> Proving the feminist war on men is not about equality of opportunity,
> >> but rather imposition of advantage...
> >
> >I agree, but the title should be ...
> >"New Labour passes bill to discriminate against men!"
> >I don't think the Lib Dems, or Tories had anything to do with it.
>
> Neither opposed it. Not that it would have made any
> difference if they had opposed it, since the Labour Party is
> the de facto Parliament due to its majority.
The tories have as much as said, they aren't going to implement it,
saying they would encourage women if they wanted to. This means that
they were against it, but the overriding rule of politics, is that
it's pointless losing a battle unless you are seen to be appealing to
people.
>
> [..]