Thoraiya DyerPolitics and the minefield of feminism
December 10th 2007 04:50
Upholding the values of feminism can, at times, be a labyrinth. To adhere to some basic modern principles of feminism is tricky because the situations in which we can choose to apply the beliefs of feminism can quite quickly turn into conundrums. Where gender roles and status are flagged as ‘issues’ within a certain circumstance or wider issue, navigating what you believe to correspond with a wider set of values that you think you ought to believe in can be a post-modern nightmare.
‘Women in politics’ is one such area that presents, for myself, a series of ambiguous feelings. Fundamentally, of course, it doesn’t. I am a proponent of the school for representation, as essentially female issues cannot be determined by those who are not female. Indeed, in a similar vein, indigenous issues should not be decided upon by those who are not indigenous. This seems to be in line with ideas of democracy, were representation and Locke’s ‘social contract’ are its raison d’être.
What I am talking about, specifically, is the nature of discussion around female representation. One of the good points of the new Labor government is the comparitevly high level of female representation in the cabinet, with women attached to powerful portfolios. Kevin Rudd himself highlighted this positive step. Which leaves me in a quandary: feminists should be pleased at the progress, but at the same time, should this not just be accepted? The female politicians are granted their positions based on merit, and their positions should be highlighted because of their talent or appropriateness, not because they can collectively be grouped as female.
I’m looking forward to a time where the status of females has progressed so far that female political representation is not even considered an issue. I wish for a time where it’s not a big deal that females are in powerful positions, that it is inherently felt as a natural, ‘given’ situation. Mind you, when a single, childless female politician is described as ‘deliberately barren’, it seems as if we have a way to go before equality is really felt between the sexes.
‘Women in politics’ is one such area that presents, for myself, a series of ambiguous feelings. Fundamentally, of course, it doesn’t. I am a proponent of the school for representation, as essentially female issues cannot be determined by those who are not female. Indeed, in a similar vein, indigenous issues should not be decided upon by those who are not indigenous. This seems to be in line with ideas of democracy, were representation and Locke’s ‘social contract’ are its raison d’être.
What I am talking about, specifically, is the nature of discussion around female representation. One of the good points of the new Labor government is the comparitevly high level of female representation in the cabinet, with women attached to powerful portfolios. Kevin Rudd himself highlighted this positive step. Which leaves me in a quandary: feminists should be pleased at the progress, but at the same time, should this not just be accepted? The female politicians are granted their positions based on merit, and their positions should be highlighted because of their talent or appropriateness, not because they can collectively be grouped as female.
I’m looking forward to a time where the status of females has progressed so far that female political representation is not even considered an issue. I wish for a time where it’s not a big deal that females are in powerful positions, that it is inherently felt as a natural, ‘given’ situation. Mind you, when a single, childless female politician is described as ‘deliberately barren’, it seems as if we have a way to go before equality is really felt between the sexes.
| 73 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
