How many women does it take to make a difference? - February 9, 2010
- Professor
Sarah Childs (Professor of Politics and Gender, University of Bristol)
- Nadine Dorries MP
- Harriet Harman MP (Minister for Women & Equality)
- Linda Tarr-Whelan (former Ambassador to the UN Commission on the Status of Women)
Chair: Matt Korris (Research Fellow,
Parliament and Government Programme, Hansard Society)
In Westminster on Tuesday February 9, the Hansard Society addressed issues of equality and women's rights
by asking the question ‘How many women does it take to make a difference?'. The
panel included Professor Sarah Childs (Professor of Politics and
Gender, University of Bristol),
Nadine Dorries
MP, Harriet Harman MP (Minister for
Women & Equality) and Linda
Tarr-Whelan (former
Ambassador to the UN Commission on
the Status of Women). The speakers addressed the issue from a number of
perspectives and viewpoints creating a debate which was serious, rational, informative and inspiring. International data and
research was combined with candid insights into life in parliament and
politics.
Linda Tarr-Whelan started
the debate by proposing that a presence of 30% women results in different
positive outcomes for business and
politics. She emphasised that this figure shouldn't be a ceiling, but a floor. In the USA, she sees the same debate
happening in different fields but it hasn't become a broad public debate yet. There
are many talented, ambitious women in the pipeline but not enough openings and
opportunities for them. She also argued that this is seen as an
issue of gender when really it's an issue of balance and balanced leadership that
leads to better outcomes. Linda said that research shows that companies which
have 30% women make higher profits. The "30% solution makes for good business and smart politics". Finally, she
announced the launch of a campaign to see 30% women's participation by 2020 -
the 100 year anniversary of women's suffrage in the USA.
Harriet Harman MP started by saying that she and Linda Tarr-Whelan agreed totally on the issues being discussed. She continued by saying that the actions of women in the USA had empowered women in the UK. She went on to say that men and women regard themselves as equal, but still lead different lives. There is still unequal division of labour in the home and unequal pay in the workplace; women are the main carers for children and also for older relatives. These experiences inform and influence women. When Harriet Harman was first elected in 1982 only 3% of MPs in Parliament were women and the agenda was very male. Questions in Parliament about domestic violence and after-school care were not considered serious political issues. Harriet Harman said she believes that critical mass is important and that quotas are effective, Labour used all-women shortlists to grow from 10 to over 90 MPs, which had made a difference to the political agenda, at the same time as the Conservatives increased from 13 to 17 women MPs. Finally, she argued that women working together internationally is important, especially the foundation of the new UN Women's Agency.
Nadine Dorries MP began by explaining that she had struggled to
be at parliament over the last five years as a mother working
away from home. She pointed out that
currently 33% of Conservative candidates are women and that this was achieved
without all-women shortlists or quotas. She added that there were no women in the
cabinet or any frontbencher who had come from all-women shortlists, except for
previously Jacqui Smith. Women should be elected on their own merit. What did
concern her was the impact of expenses reforms
on MPs with families, especially women, as they would not be able to bring
their families with them. These practical issues may discourage women from
becoming MPs and she felt that we may lose some current women MPs. She recently
spoke at a girls' school where only a minority
said that they would consider entering politics. Most said they were not
interested because it was too adversarial, boring
and like football. Nadine Dorries
wasn't sure that it was possible to change the culture of politics and pointed
out that in her experience women in politics were just as ambitious and
adversarial as the men, but she did want to see a crèche at Westminster, better working
hours and expenses reforms that took
account of MPs with families. She concluded that all-women shortlists won't help but that 30% of MPs in parliament being women probably would
make a difference to parliament and politics.
Professor Sarah Childs explained that while she supported all-women lists, quotas, mentoring and networking,
and that her research supports these
ideas too, she had a problem with the 30% figure.
She also wanted to question what was meant by ‘making a difference?' as this
would be assessed differently by different women. She would rather start from
the principle of justice. She argued
that there is no magic in numbers and that the actual data is a lot messier
than one would hope for. Also, the 30% figure may become ‘a ceiling and not a
floor'. She questioned the assumption that women would act differently than men
- studies do not show that a certain number of women corresponds
with women friendly policies. Men may backlash against a block of organised women and greater numbers of women may
have less solidarity. A focus on numbers misses the context in which politics
take place, e.g. ceremonies and
rituals, party allegiances. It also depends on where women are in institutions,
whether they are leaders or on
committees where they can change things. She argued that ‘critical actors' are
more important
than critical mass. Critical actors
are prepared to speak on behalf of women - they can be men or women. To conclude she addressed the issue of
parity of presence stating that international data shows that sex quotas make a
difference and the idea of critical mass hides more
than it reveals.
The panellists agreed
that getting more women to
participate in politics was essential for
including more perspectives and
better policy making, but they also mentioned a number of practical issues and key
changes that were necessary to make it possible for
women with families to be able to participate in parliament and politics. By
implementing measures such as flexible working
and job-sharing, business has had success retaining talented women. Questions
from the audience raised issues such as how the press treated women MPs, how to
encourage more women to stand as
candidates, how women are elected at the same rate as men but that incumbents
are often re-elected which makes it harder to change the balance and how the
public can ask all politicians about issues which affect women.
See the photos on Flickr
Listen to the audio
Linda Tarr-Whelan & Harriet Harman MP
Nadine Dorries MP & Professor Sarah Childs
Q&A