No Politics, Please ….We’re Women!

Over 90 people attended a Hansard Society meeting in Westminster to discuss a new briefing based on original Hansard Society research about women's attitudes to politics. The panel was:  Helen Goodman MP (Government Whip), Ros Taylor (The Guardian), Dr Jonathan Dean (Gender Institute, London School of Economics), and Lee Chalmers (the Downing Street Project). The event was chaired by Dr Sarah Childs (Bristol University).

Gender Research Paper

Click here to listen to the research paper being discussed on Radio 4's Women's Hour

Dr Sarah Childs outlined the key points of the research which shows that women are disproportionately less likely to say they are both interested and knowledgeable about politics than men. In addition, the research shows that while men tend to overestimate their actual political knowledge, women tend to underestimate how much they know about politics.

Helen Goodman MP rejected the notion that women are less interested and knowledgeable about politics. The problem is that politics has been formed in a male image. Two key differences between the genders in the way they approach politics are that women's agenda is often different from men's (for example, women are more interested in health and men are more interested in the economy) and style (women are not so interested in institutional arrangements).

Ms Goodman said that in 1997 Labour won because 44% of women voted for them - the first time that such a large percentage of women voted for Labour. She listed Labour's achievements which had benefited women, such as the minimum wage, but acknowledged that the political ‘brand' is still portrayed as a ‘boxing match' - Brown v Cameron. She emphasised that All Women Shortlists had made a real difference to women's representation in Parliament - 28% of Labour MPs are women compared to 16% of Liberal Democrats and 9% of Conservatives.

She stressed that women's representation does matter - women can shift the political agenda and make a difference to the way in which Parliament works. Furthermore, in constituencies where there is a woman MP, turnout rises for both women (by 9%) and men (by 5%).

Dr Jonathan Dean welcomed the report but also disagreed that women are less interested and knowledgeable about politics than men. He said that he is concerned that women are seen as a problem group as this distracts attention from the creation and maintenance of gender hierarchies in our political institutions. He outlined three institutional obstacles: firstly, institutionalised sexism in political parties, especially at local level, secondly, the media treatment of women politicians and thirdly, the myths about women's attitudes to political participation (for example, that women are fickle, that they are more interested in personalities than polices and that they need gimmicks to involve them).

He pointed out that while there is a gender gap in participation in ‘high' politics, this gap is much smaller or non-existent, in local or grass roots activity - but this is too often regarded as not ‘proper politics'. He acknowledged that these problems are deeply entrenched and hard to legislate against and called on the media to examine perceptions of politics. The key to change is to have an open and concerted debate about gender assumptions in public life.

Ros Taylor was dismayed by the title of the discussion and thought it was too Westminster-focused. We need to move beyond Westminster.

She felt that the key point was not that women actually know less than men about politics but that they think that they know less. She puts this down to women being more modest and underestimating their own knowledge. When it comes to issues such as how education and the health service works, women often know a very great deal. The problem is that women confine themselves and this humility means that they are excluded from many areas of national debate. We need to instigate a culture where women are more willing to put themselves forward.

In her job she finds that women have less time for media self-promotion and don't submit opinion pieces nearly as often as men. In addition, political coverage in the media centres on an obsession with factional debate and attempts to identity rebels so that many important elements (for example Select Committee reports) are overlooked. She also pointed out that many women journalists are pushed away from the front line of politics into features.

Her key conclusion was that we need to be more positive about women's political involvement.

Lee Chalmers said that the whole style of Parliament is set up to accommodate the way that men debate and although it's true that women don't talk about politics in the same way that men do, what they can do is make a difference.

She asked why, when women often take action at local and national level, more women don't go into politics? She felt that the answer was one of attitude - women often have to be asked to stand for office and need to be encouraged to see themselves as leaders. They need mentors at the earliest stage of political involvement. She stressed that the concept of leadership is gendered and both women and men see leaders as being naturally male.

She said that women have other hurdles to cross - for example they know that they will be judged by their looks and appearance in ways that men are not.

Ms Chalmers also asked why any of this matters. She stressed that making representation equal was important; it's not the whole story.  She feels that men and women reason in a different manner - men in a linear manner and women in a more ‘holistic' way.  The world has complex problems and linear thinking has not solved these problems. Women must take a step into leadership roles because it's essential to utilise your entire nation, not just one half of it. Progress is slow and we must look at how to speed up the process.

The panel then responded to questions from the audience.