MALE POLITICAL DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN SPAIN

One of the most disturbing aspects in the war on men has been the use of gender quotas to disenfranchise men as individuals from the political system. It is the complete reversal of the situation till the 1920's when women did not have the vote and could not stand for Parliament. Now men are being actively stopped and being denied promotion.

The Labour Government brought in all-women shortlists in 1997 and even for the coming General Election have used them in 27 seats so far. They introduced a Minister for Women but have steadfastly refused to bring in a Minister for Men. Now we have the Spanish Government bringing in effectively gender quotas for its Cabinet.

In Spain (link), nine of the seventeen Cabinet members are women. Prime Minister Zapatero, had also passed a law making it compulsory for electoral lists and even company boards to have at least 40% women (link). He is "very proud that there are women ministers than men". Not a problem of course, if the nine women are amongst the best people he can get but he does not say this or prove that it is nothing but a political gesture.

Times columnist, Mary Ann Sieghart chips in with a commentray on how we need more women in the UK Cabinet (link) without any evidence that gender is more important than ability. She is roundly derided in the debate at the end of her commentary.

Both Spain and the UK Labour Party are quite unashamedly clear about their objectives.

It is not about ability or equality of opportunity but equaility of outcomes. Instead of tackling the reason why there are few women in politics whcih is essentially a supply side issue and that they choose not to be a politician (there is no sexual discriminiation in being selected as a canddiate or winning a seat), they sexually discriminate against men by blocking them from political positions including even standing.

This promotion of gender quotas for political positions is very serious for men who want to enter politics because they want to improve their community and their country. No longer will people be judged on their skill, talent and commitment. Their fitness for political office is judged on their position in the politically correct league table and men of course are always rock bottom.

Meritocracy and universal suffrage, the guiding principles of 20th century Western Democracy, have been thrown out of the window. Gender is more important than ability in the 21st Century.

This is comparable to the time when women were denied a vote and not allowed to stand for Parliament. It's turned 360 degrees.

Comments

[Patrick Brown]

I think it's even more sinister than that. If you can control who stands for election, you can subvert democracy. Increasing female representation may sound like a noble objective, but all it's done is increase the number of parachuted-in Oxbridge-educated female lawyers in parliament. The same will happen with all ethnic minority shortlists they're proposing. It's all about maintaining an oligarchy.

[John Kimble]

This sex discrimination is ridiculous - An MP should be the best person for representing their constituents.

I don't want some idiot representing me who only got the job because of quotas. As long as someone isn't racist or sexist and cares about equality then they are suitable to be my MP and everyone elses. Who cares whether they happen to have a penis or a vagina?

Also one has to feel sorry ofr people elected as a result of quotas - it will undoubtedly be held against them regardless of whether they are any good at the job or not. They won't be able to look other MPs in the eye and say I've proved I'm just as good as you by getting elected and I got this job fairly.

[Barry Madison]

You've hit the nail on the head. The problem is that women are choosing NOT to be involved in politics, so Spain is selecting its quota of women from a much smaller pool than the quota of men are coming from. This, of course, is not good for Spain. It would be good to have more women interested in politics, but presently they are not. To be realistic, they likely never will be as interested as men.

[béa20]

Emm, perhaps the problem here is that all the comments, not to mention the post itself, come from a male perspective. You all say that women are not as interested in politics as men are, and I wonder have you asked yourselves why this is. We have been denied access to politics, to top jobs and positions for so long by a patriarchal societal structure and the fact is that now we are having doors opened to us, now that there seems to be more sense to society, we will assuredly take advantage of those opportunities. Perhaps you do not like so much how it looks from the other side? Perhaps you now understand our anger and frustration over gender discrimination that has been a constant for women for a very long time. You display the same anger we have felt, and i assume you feel justifies in doing so. I wouldn't dissuade you from that realistaion. The figures still prove that discrimination relating to employment, salary, top jobs and unemployment is negatively focused on women. There is still a long way to go, and if you are worried, as a man, about women replacing you in your jobs perhaps you realise that there are women better qualified than you. It is a simple case of women frequently being better for the job. I disagree with choices based purely on the sex of a candidate, but if a man and woman are equally qualified, why shouldn't we reverse the roles for a while and employ the woman first. As females, we have suffered this for a long time and the Spanish law is about obtaining social and economic parity, rather than about protecting male egos. Besides, as you will surely admit, they are ever so fragile to begin with.

[Nigel]

A rather neat encapsulation of our own lead Fem. politico

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1020553/Why-does-Harriet-Harman-hate-marriage.html