Guernsey Press

Not all men are suited to politics either

I wanted to respond to the letter in the Press written by C Davey [Few women are suited to politics, Friday 30 April]. I have paused and thought about this, rather than give a knee-jerk emotive response.

Published

Within our society, we do subscribe to freedom of speech. However, this is not as clear cut as it may appear and results in a lot of grey areas. We do actually censor certain speech – if someone makes racist comments, makes threats or incites criminal activity/violence, then this is not allowed. More subtly, any media reporting has to select what items are reported, with what priority and with what language. I know that this letter has sparked a range of responses from ‘it should be printed because of freedom of speech’ to ‘it should not be published because it is clearly misogynistic and bigoted’.

My personal stance is that there are very few situations where someone is best suited to doing something based on their personal characteristics (gender, race, sexuality, age, etc). There are some specific circumstances where these are used appropriately, but often generalisations are made based on historical systems or socialisation. Just because something has always been done that way does not mean that it shouldn’t be challenged or that the future should look different.

In the context of the assertions made in the letter about women being best raising babies, this needs to be looked at as to why many households follow this pattern. Historically, there were practical reasons by virtue of feeding, the types of work undertaken outside the home, unavailability of birth control and so on. It was the practical solution, but then this has extended into socialisation (the expectation of gender-based roles). It is not so long ago that women were expected to automatically give up work upon marriage, and this was a clear display of social structure and not biology, practicalities or personal attributes.

There is no biological reason for girls to grow up dreaming of fairytale weddings and boys to be breadwinners, nor for the presumption to be heterosexual partnerships. There is no biological reason that children should be encouraged to engage in play based on women taking care of the home or in things like ‘doctors and nurses’ this would be the boy as doctor and girl as nurse – yet look at the marketing of toys for these, which is then internalised into thinking and actions. There is nothing biological which means that in a household with two adults of different genders in paid employment that a woman should do the cooking, cleaning and ironing and the man would mow the lawn, and do the DIY and the barbecue – yet this is often the expectation. People do have things which they are particularly good at and things they are particularly interested in, but this is based on the individual and not gender or stereotypes.

The actual pregnancy and birth is obviously gender-based, but beyond that it is very much systemic, especially when you look at the current technology and communication which enables flexibility. This is then reinforced within systems such as maternity/paternity leave in work, flexibility of hours and so on. When women are expected to take on care-giving roles, whether that is children or older family members, then this impacts their job prospects and income. This often results in higher paid and higher status work being fulfilled by men and more basic roles by women, and adds to the other domestic responsibilities which will be incorporated. This is not because being female makes them less able or less suited. It is particularly interesting to see that the traditional family structure is often replicated in fostering or adoption, where there is absolutely no biological basis for this.

In terms of politics, I think it is most healthy that any government includes a diverse range of people and views. Historically, the majority of politicians were middle class, older, white, cisgender, heterosexual, non-disabled men. This means that they have a limited experience and outlook. It would be equally limited if all politicians were young, working class women. People with different backgrounds and experience will be able to bring so much more to the discussions and debates. Whilst anybody can learn about things and address them, lived experience also counts for a lot and will identify issues that may otherwise be overlooked.

It is also not that ‘women are being cajoled into politics’, but that people may need to be encouraged to consider that they may be able to contribute in this role. This is not just about gender, but about people in general.

I personally would not vote for someone based on their gender, age, sexuality, disability, religion or anything else. Whilst I promote diversity within our politicians (as for other aspects of society and work), my primary focus is their political beliefs and whether they would make the political decisions I would want them to. However, it is important to encourage people of diverse backgrounds to enter professions (including politics) that they would have found it difficult to enter in previous times or may not think that they would be suitable or able. I know that in the last election there were a lot of new candidates and that many people saw that we needed a balance of those with experience within politics along with new people, who would bring a wealth of challenges and new ideas. Not all women would be good politicians and not all men would be either. It would be just as wrong to have someone in that position purely to be able to say we have ticked the box on diversity.

Whilst I do not agree with C Davey, it has certainly sparked a huge amount of discussion.

I have reservations about a letters section in the media where sometimes it feels like anyone can say anything and some viewpoints are more likely to be aired than others.

I believe that the media can be a good place to present a range of views, but it has to be representative of a cross-section of society.

I am not saying that people should all have the same politics as me or that only certain opinions (that agree with mine) should be reported. I am hoping that some of the responses (including this one) can be used to challenge people’s thinking.

MICHAEL ELLIS