Madam President (about time)
“Equal opportunities for men and women are an essential principle of democracy.”
– Dilma Rousseff, the new President of Brazil.
On Sunday 31st October, Brazil got a female President. And she said things like this:
“I would like for fathers and mothers to look into their daughters’ eyes today and tell them: ‘Yes, women can.’ I would like to register my first post-election commitment: to honour Brazilian women so that this unprecedented fact becomes a natural event.”
We in the UK have not had the best role models when it comes to female politicians. They’ve tended to be massively conservative (even when in the Labour party). There was Margaret Thatcher, who was certainly female and Prime Minister. Feminists seem to be split on whether that fact alone makes her an icon, or whether the illiberal policies her Conservative party enacted set us back decades. I won’t argue that here.
Since then we’ve had some really appalling female politicians. In 2004, Ruth Kelly became the youngest woman to ever sit in the Cabinet as the ‘Secretary of State for Education and Skills’. Unfortunately, the National Union of Teachers gave her an F. She then became both ‘Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government’ and ‘Minister for Women and Equality’. These posts included being the government’s liason to the Muslim community, which was an odd choice for a woman who belonged to the ultra-strict Catholic sect called Opus Dei. It also involved fighting for equality for women, which was an odd choice for… you get the idea. (Opus Dei’s record on women’s rights wasn’t exactly spectacular, even before you get to questions on abortion or contraception.)
Jacqui Smith did a much better job with Education, but then became one of the most hardline Home Secretaries we’ve ever seen, introducing all kinds of laws which removed civil liberties and sparked protests – ID cards, email snooping, holding without charge, tougher laws on drugs and prostitution (against official scientists’ and social advisers’ advice) that did nothing to solve the problems, etc.
Harriet Harman is held as a hero by some, although she’s not without her share of conservative or illiberal voting either. She proposed a rule change to hide MP’s expenses from the public, voted for the war, and nearly always kept in line with whatever the government position on anything was. (You can’t do this and be very liberal, at least not in the UK in the past 30 years).
Hazel Blears… next.
Without going down the full list, the trend has definitely been that while we’ve had women in positions of power (Deputy leader of the Labour Party, senior posts) there haven’t been any big shining examples of female politicians bringing about social equality.
In the US we have such amazing liberal heroines as Hillary Clinton (my personal opinion here, but I reckon we’d have invaded Iran already if she was in) and the now-famous ‘feminist’ Sarah… Palin… *hides*
Which is why Dilma Rousseff saying these things as the new President of Brazil is so brilliant. “Equal opportunities for men and women are an essential principle of democracy.” That’s fantastic. The UK Labour party is meant to be about reducing inequality, and the Lib Dems have it written specifically on their membership cards, but so far their records when they get into power have been of massively increasing inequality (especially financial).
President Laura Roslin in Battlestar Galactica (Copyright Syfy channel)
There is a lot of scrutiny on the numbers of women in political positions, but I think higher numbers become less important if they’re just as aggressive, reactionary and conservative as the men. What we need as feminists is someone who will move forward not back, move away from the traditional and do new things, and put the support in place to enable women to have a clear chance at equality. In my opinion, that person would by definition have to be a liberal, not conservative. And probably a lefty one.
It’s a sad fact that when they hear the words “Madam President”, a lot of people immediately think of Battlestar Galactica. Laura Roslin might have been forced to become extremely ruthless due to the plot of the show, but she started off as a bleeding-heart liberal – and we don’t have many of those to choose from. More often, women in power have to prove themselves as more traditionally masculine than the men just to not be considered ‘weak’.
President Rousseff seems to be ready to take on anything her political enemies can throw at her (which will likely be a lot, given the dirty media campaign against her in the election) but she has come out with the absolutely clear message that equality is a priority. BadRep wishes her every success in her new post!
I know this is a mainly conversational post and the main point is hurrah Brazil, but I still think that “since then we’ve had some really appalling female politicians” is quite a statement, y’know – I’ve trumpeted at you about them before, but since Thatcher, I think it’s also important to remember, for instance, the late Mo Mowlam, Barbara Castle, Glenda Jackson, Clare Short, Diane Abbott, and Oona King. You might debate some of their policies, but I wouldn’t call any of them appalling.
Oona King’s done a firewalk for Fawcett and lost her seat at one point to a very left wing politician over the Iraq war – but the politician in question was George Galloway, whose endorsement I believe feminism needs like a hole in the head. So I think that lefter than left alone doth not always a feminist-friendly pudding make (although admittedly for me personally I might not complain because hoo hah socialism, etc, but I’m trying to lay that on one side for the minute).
If it takes more to fulfil one’s feminist-friendly credentials than simply being a women, then I would argue that it takes more than simply being a lefty to fulfil one’s forward-moving social justice-bringing credentials too.
Mowlam particularly can arguably be credited, in the words of one person I mentioned her to this morning, with “doing more to bring peace to Northern Ireland than a lot of people and arguably anyone else”.
Also, leaving out the “What Does It Mean To Be Minister for Women debate” AND the “Can Conservatives Not Be Feminists Too debate” for the moment (both important debates, but if I stake claims in all of them this comment will dwarf the post!) … are the “appalling” ones more appalling than the male ones, and do we judge them on the same scale? And if we do, is this fair?
I think one could take the view that as they’re in a minority, it’s easy to heap the pressure on them to be better As Examples Of LadyPoliticians. This might not be wise given that they are subject to the same pressures to bend to a party line to get things done in other areas, to negotiate and to Do Deals as the male politicians. And as they’re in a minority, is it surprising that they may not do things especially differently? (Note: I am no expert on political dealmaking and my only window on how it might work comes from The West Wing. But that’s not a bad example, I think.)
There are also a lot of politically involved women out there – not as much as I would like, but they are very much there. Shami Chakrabarti springs to mind.
Mowlam I have a LOT of time for, and nearly added her in at the last minute. Diane Abbott and Oona King also came up in conversation, but neither of them has held a ministerial post. I wanted to concentrate on the fact that we haven’t had any high-profile women in the top positions who have then managed to act strongly in the public eye for women, liberalism or the left, even when that’s been their personal ideals.
Some of the appalling female MPs are are just as appalling as the males, but so far the men have generally had the power and opportunity to make their worse ideas happen, and therefore win the appalling race on points for me.
What brought it home for me was that (while we’ve had similar sentiments on equality from female MPs) we’ve never had them so openly acted on as fundamental to democracy by a female MP who is at the top of the ranks. This could be because once you’re that senior in the UK, your hands are tied from making any real change or being too outspoken. I just find a shame that it hasn’t led to blazing, heroic political role-models for women in recent times. (Except for Mo Mowlam. She told a much-hated politician to ‘f*** off’ and called another one a name I shan’t repeat here, also deserved. Her uncompromising attitude doubtless aided her in the real and truly excellent gains she made to peace in Northern Ireland.)
I wonder if this has something to do with the concomitant trend for super left wingers to go super-iron fist on traditionally Masculine areas – witness LBJ in America bringing in some of the most progressive social policies ever seen in the US, while storming through Vietnam and escalating the war Kennedy had started. Or Clement Atlee, whose National Health Service (YAY) had to be a half-measure (BOO) so that he could spend the remaining money on building the Bomb, thus proving that The Left Have Big Muscles Too, in the most hideous of ways.
Basically – yes.
It’s like how Nixon could go to China, but a Democrat would have been panned.
Even before the Cold War there’s always been a sense that being left-of-centre if somehow faintly unpatriotic (lots of people found it all too easy to believe the Zinoviev Letter).
Of course, there is also the fact that the not all voters on the left have the same perspective on the more reactionary/macho policies and posturing or accord the same priorities to different aspects of legislation. For example:
Remember John Reid as Home Sec banging on about crushing Monkey/Mini Bikes?
Next day out doorknocking, the number one issue for people on that road… the kids on the mini bike making lots of noise and putting themselves at risk.
Asbos?
Not that I’m endorsing them, but scared/at-wits-end people in some areas were saying “at least *these* politicians are trying to do something about it”
Tough on Crime?
People on lower incomes are proportionately more the victims of many forms of crime than the better off.
Digital Economy Bill/Act?
Not something that was ever going to make the front page of The Sun or The Mirror.
The amount of google results for the phrase “liberal pansy” is certainly an interesting one.
*goes to check google* Yikes!
And this despite it being the Left that started fighting facism long before the ‘patriots’…
“My conclusion: Forbes are conflating “power” with “fame”? Because more five year olds in the USA have heard of Oprah than of Angela Merkel.”
Probably a bit of that mixed with a bit of most ‘top lists’ are inherently going to show bias along national/geographical/ideological/awareness lines.
Reminds me of a bit of Transmetropolitan (apologies if I don’t quite get the quote 100% right)
Spider Jersualem: “I showed some kids a map of the world and asked them to point to the USA. They pointed at Russia ‘because it’s the biggest'”
President in Ireland is still a largely ceremonial role, but we elected our first woman president in 1990. Prior to being elected, she was the lawyer who argued the case that legalised homosexuality in Ireland in front of the EU courts (though it was a few more years before it came in), and actually stepped down as president early to become UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Mary Robinson is proper awesome.
*Looks her up* *Jaw hits floor*
Wow. Respect to that woman. I need to find out more about her, but an instant-impression internet search suggests she’s made of Awesome. My Mum’s Irish so I do keep an eye on the news, but all that England gets is if the Taoiseach has been naughty again.
An article on women in power, and how there aren’t enough of them, and how those that are there don’t work for equality enough, that doesn’t mention Johanna Sigurdardottir?
Steve, did you do any research for this, or did you just decide to shout for a bit? :)
It’s an article on *UK* *Senior* female politicians :)
(“We in the UK…”)
And I did say it’s only a trend, there are exceptions. It’s just that they’re mostly low-ranking exceptions who haven’t had a chance to dictate policy.
Well, yeah, but you’re comparing them to a female head of government who got elected a month ago, who hasn’t taken office yet, let alone on set policy gender issues, instead of comparing them to a female head of government with a good track record on gender related policy issues. I’m just saying if you wanted a point of comparison to make our mob look bad, there are stronger ones.
I’m quite keen to do a wholly-positive post on ‘other people’s Presidents’ now :)
I have friends with strong views on Angela Merkel, and am keen to find out more about Johanna Sigurdardottir. I mostly know about her policies on strip-clubs, but last thing I heard she was proposing a massive debt-relief program which is going to send the IMF into spasms (probably a very good thing!)
Oh, and to bring up the Forbes Power Women 100, it remains rather a point of interest that various women who *aren’t* heads of state come first on it. There are First Ladies and TV presenters before one gets anywhere near the Johannas of the world. Also Lady Gaga. If it were men, surely there’d be presidents and tycoons way before Bono?
Trying to work out if a partway explanation for this, aside from cynical responses, is that the female heads of state we have pre-Rousseff just aren’t heading up nations that are big enough to rival the big powers?
This is a point – I haven’t really got a sense of what Rousseff’s aims are, being not especially clued in on Brazilian politics. So while it’s nice to see a woman in the post, I don’t actually know a lot about her except that she is, according to Wikipedia, a socialist.
So, for any readers who are curious about her, here are some basic links (I have no idea about bias levels, though):
The Indy
The Beeb
The Staggers
The Grauniad
More Graun
Amusingly, she has already been nicknamed the “iron lady”, although only, so far for her apparent temper.
” is that the female heads of state we have pre-Rousseff just aren’t heading up nations that are big enough to rival the big powers?”
I’d say Germany counted as a pretty major power, so sadly it looks like it’s the cyncial option : (
Bah. :(
Do I get points for, er, trying? :D
Sigh.
EDIT: mind you, Merkel is number 4 on the Forbes 100. Which isn’t bad. I’m just a bit discombobulated that Oprah’s ahead of her at number 3!
My conclusion: Forbes are conflating “power” with “fame”? Because more five year olds in the USA have heard of Oprah than of Angela Merkel.
*goes off to reflect on How To Define Power (before I fall down a comment-hole of “madam, to expostulate / What majesty should be…” etc!)*
Problem with Merkel is she’s very strong on the international scene (telling people to f**** off and putting her foot down when it comes to protect Germany’s interests) and extremely weak and indecisive at home. She seems to be somewhat of a feminist icon outside of Germany, but I’m not entirely sure she deserves that position: she has never endorsed or even discussed ANY feminist policies at all. The only time she tried to play the *feminine* card was when she realised that she would need the female vote.
She’s all about consensus rather than confrontation (although that’s absolutely not her image internationally). Pretty good article on her here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,650888,00.html