NationStates Jolt Archive

Just out of interest, here's the percentage of women MPs in each country.

http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm

These are top of the list:

Rwanda: 48,8%
Sweden: 47%
Cuba: 43,2%
Finland: 41,5%
Argentina: 40%

After that, in the top 30 you have the Netherlands, Denmark, Costa Rica, Spain, Norway, Belgium, Mozambique, Iceland, New Zealand, South Africa, Austria, Germany, Uganda, Burundi, Tanzania, Peru, Macedonia, Timor Leste, Belarus, Guyana, Switzerland, Portugal, Afghanistan, Namibia, Trinidad & Tobago, Australia, Grenada, and Vietnam.

At the bottom ten, we have Yemen, (0,3%), followed by nine countries all at 0%: Belize, the FSM, Nauru, Oman, Palau, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.

Pakistan is 43rd (22,5%). Canada and China are joint 49th (21,4%). The UK is 58th, jointly with Cambodia (19,5%). France is 62nd, jointly with Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (18,2%). The USA is 68th (16,8%). Russia is 80th (14%). Ireland is 85th (13,3%). San Marino, alas, is all the way down in 94th (11,7%), despite one of its two current leaders being a woman. Japan is 103rd (9,4%). India is 105th (9,1%).

I'm not sure how meaningful all of this is, but I'm sure that the collected wisdom of Generalites can make something interesting (or wildly bizarre) out of it.

That Saudia arabia never fails to disappoint?

I fail to care whether my representative is a man or a woman. I vote platform first.

Should Cuba really count ???

Seems to just be rule by the Castros

I fail to care whether my representative is a man or a woman. I vote platform first.

For once, I agree with you. I voted for a male candidate in the last parliamentary elections, but if the party I voted for had fielded a woman, she would, of course, have got my vote.

I'm not implying that absolute gender parity is in any way a necessity. I'm just wondering whether these statistics can be seen as indicative of anything.

Should Cuba really count ???

Seems to just be rule by the Castros

Cuba has a Parliament, and therefore MPs, include a comparatively high proportion of women MPs. To see how it all works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assembly_of_People%27s_Power

Ariddia, consider two concurrent trends:

1. Some societies are just more sexist than others.

2. More importantly in the West, gender is psychological rather than biological. As a leftist, you no doubt know that.

Let us now suppose that gender roles and qualities, as influenced and created by the various culture, create a situation where the set of, say, 'feminine' qualities does not also dovetail with the popular political views in the country - so Republicans don't elect female candidates, because being female in America doesn't dovetail well with the qualities expected from a Republican politician (not that Republicans direclty dislike women or something, but they want their politicians to be strong, and to favor CRUSHING THE ENEMY WITH AN IRON FIST, and women in America aren't expected to be like that).

You see where I am going with this?

Note the two are not mutually contradictory.

The data for Italy were missing so I retrived them from www.camera.it and www.senato.it

Camera dei Deputati: 133 women / 630 seats. 21,11%
Senato della Repubblica: 58 women / 322 seats. 18.01%
(elected Senators 315, women 57: 18.10%. Senators for life 7, women 1: 14,29%)

Total: (133+58)/(630+322)=191/952=20,06% (rounding to 21,1%)

between the listed 49th place of Canada and China and the listed 50th place of Croatia.
In the EU these countries have less women in the Parliament than Italy: Estonia, Poland, Latvia, UK, Slovakia, France, Czech Republic, Greece, Cyprus, Ireland, Slovenia, Hungary, Romania, Malta. I thought Italy was faring worse...

I'm not implying that absolute gender parity is in any way a necessity. I'm just wondering whether these statistics can be seen as indicative of anything.


Sexism in politics, expecially in countries like Italy, where voters cannot give preferences thanks to the electoral law passed by the centre-right majority in 2006.

Ariddia, consider two concurrent trends:

1. Some societies are just more sexist than others.

2. More importantly in the West, gender is psychological rather than biological. As a leftist, you no doubt know that.

Let us now suppose that gender roles and qualities, as influenced and created by the various culture, create a situation where the set of, say, 'feminine' qualities does not also dovetail with the popular political views in the country - so Republicans don't elect female candidates, because being female in America doesn't dovetail well with the qualities expected from a Republican politician (not that Republicans direclty dislike women or something, but they want their politicians to be strong, and to favor CRUSHING THE ENEMY WITH AN IRON FIST, and women in America aren't expected to be like that).

You see where I am going with this?

Note the two are not mutually contradictory.

Good points. Although I'd be interested to know how many Republicans would be prepared to vote for Rice, if ever she were a candidate. The whole "crushing the enemy with an iron fist" thing seems to be a central part of her image.

Sexism in politics, expecially in countries like Italy, where voters cannot give preferences thanks to the electoral law passed by the centre-right majority in 2006.

So how does the electoral system work now?

I remember reading about the more proportional an electoral system is the more women and minorities there are in the legislative body, generally.

There was a Draft Condi '08 thing.

It died when she said she ain't running.

Cuba has a Parliament, and therefore MPs, include a comparatively high proportion of women MPs. To see how it all works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assembly_of_People%27s_Power

so basically a dog and pony show while Raúl rules everything ????

so basically a dog and pony show while Raúl rules everything ????

Quite like the soviet system where they had a faux-parliament.

Also, there's a telegram for Ariddia.

I work for a female parliamentarian in Oz.

And proud of it.

Which Parliamentarian, Erri?

Which Parliamentarian, Erri?

Fiona Richardson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_Richardson), Labor for the seat of Northcote in the Victorian Parliament and Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury and Finance.

Not real famous.

Yet.

Does it really matter. The notion of saying that they should be 50% men and 50% women in Parliament is a joke and an insult on the notion of democracy, people should vote for who they think would make the better representative and not be told that they can only vote for one gender, aren't women just as good as men? Why do they need to have a boost if they have the same abilities

If I'm not mistaken, Rwanda has laws detailing the sexual makeup of Parliament.

Also, there's a telegram for Ariddia.

Replied.

Fiona Richardson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_Richardson), Labor for the seat of Northcote in the Victorian Parliament and Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury and Finance.

Not real famous.

Yet.

Hmmm. Maybe I'll translate that article into the French Wikipedia one day, if I have time. (My latest contributions to Wikipedia (the English one) have been on far more obscure topics, at least from the perspective of the Western world: The Land Has Eyes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Land_Has_Eyes), Vilsoni Hereniko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilsoni_Hereniko), Sapeta Taito (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapeta_Taito).)

Out of sheer curiosity, is she a citizen of Tanzania, or was she just born there for some reason?

I work for a female parliamentarian in Oz.

And proud of it.

Why?
That's sexist. If you like your politicians ideals, shouldn't you like them just as much in a male, and feel the same amount of pride. If you had to choose Condeleeza Rice, Margaret Thatcher or a male version of the person you work for, would you choose the women?

The terrifying trend I have seen with women in politics, is they are more heartless than the men, as they need to look hard core enough to tough it out with "the boys". This is not an absolute, and I would elect any politician based on their platform, not a "trend" I think I have perceived, but I think the trend is there.

In the US, it's probably the end result of the "sophomore surge", and the fact that one of the most difficult things to do is to get elected to Congress off of an incumbent.

Replied.




Replied to the reply.

Also, isn't supporting your parliamentarian because she belongs to the female gender (And don't use 'sex') sexist?

Why?
That's sexist. If you like your politicians ideals, shouldn't you like them just as much in a male, and feel the same amount of pride. If you had to choose Condeleeza Rice, Margaret Thatcher or a male version of the person you work for, would you choose the women?

The terrifying trend I have seen with women in politics, is they are more heartless than the men, as they need to look hard core enough to tough it out with "the boys". This is not an absolute, and I would elect any politician based on their platform, not a "trend" I think I have perceived, but I think the trend is there.

...Also, isn't supporting your parliamentarian because she belongs to the female gender (And don't use 'sex') sexist?

Sexist to be proud to be working for a female parliamentarian? Only, if I wouldn't also be proud to work for a male parliamentarian with identical values.

BTW, being a long time friend of Fiona's (since she was a teenager), I can assure you she got where she is on her abilities.

Australia is fortunate to have some capable female politicians in powerful positions in the federal government: Julia Gillard, Nicola Roxon, Jenny Macklin and Penny Wong come to mind. They all got there on their ability.

On the tough image cultivated by female politicians, I think that's a reaction to the voter perception that politics requires a certain amount of intellectual / psychological brutality. Sadly, that doesn't fit in with accepted gender stereotypes for women. I suspect that's one of the reasons Hilary Clinton has failed in the nomination race. She has tried to look strong but, too often comes across as shrewish (if you can forgive this usually gender specific adjective). We want tough politicians but react against tough women. I reckon the problem isn't with the women, but with us.

no i would never vote for a woman to run my country

[QUOTE=Ariddia;13711642]Good points. Although I'd be interested to know how many Republicans would be prepared to vote for Rice, if ever she were a candidate. The whole "crushing the enemy with an iron fist" thing seems to be a central part of her image.

I think a lot of republicans would vote for here if she was pitted against a liberal democrat. I personally am a liberterian leaning conservative who has voted for numerous women over men in pas elections. I vote for who i believe has the most experience/who will lead the country in the right path. This is why i am not 100% sure i will be voting for either of the two main party candidates

You twit the USA does not have a Parliament!:p

At the bottom ten, we have Yemen, (0,3%), followed by nine countries all at 0%: Belize, the FSM, Nauru, Oman, Palau, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.
the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

If I'm not mistaken, Rwanda has laws detailing the sexual makeup of Parliament.

They might have, but the chief reason for their top spot on this list, is the fact that a large portion of the male population simply was wiped out in the recent genocide.

You twit the USA does not have a Parliament!:p

I'm not sure at whom you're directing this barb, but Congress would fit the definition of a parliament, even if it isn't tagged as such in the US.

I fail to care whether my representative is a man or a woman. I vote platform first.
Agreed.

Agreed.

Second!

I'm not sure at whom you're directing this barb, but Congress would fit the definition of a parliament, even if it isn't tagged as such in the US.

Yes as they are all law making bodies....our founding fathers just wanted to stay away from everthing British!!:p