More Nancy Pelosis, Please

Why the world needs more female lawmakers -- and why quota systems won't necessarily get us there.

BY ALEXANDRA STARR | MARCH 24, 2010

When the Indian Parliament passed a bill earlier this month requiring that a third of the body's seats be reserved for women, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described the vote as a "historic step forward toward emancipation of Indian womanhood." But if anything, the Indians are late to the party. More than 100 countries already have gender-based quotas in their legislatures, and if the experience of these nations is any indication, Singh announced Mission Accomplished a little early.

That's because, in most cases worldwide, an influx of female legislators has led to few noticeable changes in policy. To be sure, individual women leaders around the world have proved very influential -- look no further than U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who played a pivotal role in ushering health-care reform through Congress. But in countries that adopt quotas, female legislators tend to be junior players who can be stymied by misogynistic old boys clubs. And the unintended consequences range from culture shock to retrenched anti-feminism to, every now and then, progress in surprising areas.

In Argentina, the transition from an almost all-male parliament to including 30 percent (now almost 40 percent) women was rocky at first. Some female legislators were turned away when they tried to enter el Congreso through the entrance reserved for deputies: The guards would explain that girlfriends needed to use a different doorway. "That particularly happened to the attractive deputies," Mark Jones, a Rice University political science professor who studies Latin American electoral politics, observes wryly.

One questionable custom -- converting the dining hall, popularly known as the anexo, into a bar in the evenings where male legislators could rub shoulders with young women -- was eventually discontinued after more women took up seats as deputies. Once the congressional gender composition was altered, running what was effectively a nocturnal meat market within the country's most august legislative building began to look less seemly.

When it comes to policy, however, change isn't always as easy to come by. For one, a double X chromosome doesn't guarantee that a representative will champion issues like access to contraception and subsidized child care. And even if she does, party bosses often stand in the way of getting things done. Part of the problem is inherent in the quota system itself. As I wrote in an article for Slate, women who enter politics through a quota system often have to keep their higher-ups happy because they are generally elected in countries where citizens vote for parties rather than for individual candidates. That means if a candidate runs afoul of party bigwigs, she can be expunged from the ballot, as in the case of former Argentine national deputy Marcela Durrieu, who was kicked out of the party along with her allies when her push for women's rights antagonized Buenos Aires's male old guard.

The female dependence on male party leaders is underscored in some countries by ugly nicknames. In Britain, where Tory leader David Cameron has actively recruited female candidates, the press has tagged some of the new pols "Cameron's cuties." In Argentina, women parliamentarians are occasionally referred to as "mujeres de," or "women of," the implication being that they owe their jobs to the men heading their parties.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

 

Alexandra Starr has written about women and politics for Slate, the New Republic, and the New York Times Magazine.

UNCLESAM

1:08 AM ET

March 25, 2010

You want her? You can have her.

I'll throw in Hillary Clinton too. Move over Greece. With Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid running the show, were headed for bankruptcy. The federal reserve can only print out so much money. That reminds me. Does anybody have any more ink?

 

BUFFALO09

2:51 AM ET

March 25, 2010

More Nancy Pelosis, Please?

Hey Alexandra, while we're at it why don't we throw in a fundamentalist right-wing nut bag like Ann Coulter to go along with the ultra leftist quasi socialist self righteous bitch Pelosi?

“Look no further than U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who played a pivotal role in ushering health-care reform through Congress.”

Alexandra, I must admit that I was quite surprised to see you so casually use the term “ushering” to describe how Congress completely ignored their constituency, the overwhelming majority of Americans who support healthcare reform but not the current forced legislative proposal. There is no question that recent polling clearly illustrates that the American people spoke decisively against a big government, high-tax, Washington knows best, pro trial lawyer, centralized bureaucratic health system. Well it is the morally correct action required to extend coverage that the intellectual elite argue as sound reasoning while completely ignoring the moral debate that challenges the validity of this reasoning as imposing trillions of dollars of debt upon future generations demands equal consideration when morals are injected as a foundation of logic. Besides, the equivalent hypothetical comparison might involve a Republican majority that injects moral duty as perverted reasoning that entails forcing legislation against the majority of the American constituency that would make abortion illegal. This hypothetical scenario illustrates how Congress has willfully defied the will of the American people based upon the insertion of fulfilling a moral duty supersedes the demands of the people but also infringes upon the personal rights of women as the right to choose would be threatened due to the imposition of a new law that whose evolution was based upon a notion of what they perceive to be their “moral duty”.

Look at what happened with House Democrats Scott Murphy (N.Y.), John Boccieri (Ohio), and Brad Ellsworth (Ind.). The Center for Health Transformation commissioned surveys late last week specifically polling their constituents. We found deep and overwhelming opposition. In Rep. Boccieri's district, his constituents opposed the bill by a 61-33 margin. For Rep. Ellsworth, it was even worse: 63 to 30 opposed. But all three congressmen ignored their constituents. All three chose Speaker Pelosi over their constituents. What we saw Sunday night was a pressured, bought, intimidated vote worthy of Hugo Chavez but unworthy of the United States of America. In a democracy, you can only ignore the will of the people for so long and get away with it.

Alexandra, if the majority of Americans supported the proposed legislation currently in the Senate the term “ushered” would be deemed acceptable as it would accurately describe the process involving elected representatives in Congress whose role is to act as a voice for the majority of the constituency in the state which elected the person to office. However, reality dictates that this extremely decisive issue has been plagued with back room deals, closed door bill drafting’s, and a televised circus event whose promotion was based upon the promise of transparency actually transpired into a colossal failure as both sides bickered and manipulated CBO numbers, while questions posed about the actual bill were described by our President as stage props. Both sides have failed their constituency as one party that controlled the balance of power ignored the plight of Americans as they pleaded for sensible measures involving healthcare reform. Americans are being ignored once again as their demands involving logical healthcare reform measures remain drowned out by an elitist mentality in D.C. that assaults the intellect of their own constituents by ignoring the plight and will of the citizens who voted them into office (Essentially the constituency is too ignorant and intellectually challenged to engage in affairs of this nature, therefore it is the duty of the govt. to impose laws that challenge the extent of personal liberties.) One of the most powerful examples of strength where women undertook the entire burden of our country on their backs and put America back on its feet, despite being in the middle of a depression and then America’s entrance into WWII; it was the women of our nation that overcame these extreme challenges through hard work, determination, and desire to succeed. I am ever amazed as to why the women in this country have yet to receive credit for all the work they provided in the factories that lifted the country out of depression as the male population fought in Europe. It was the efforts of the women in this country that allowed our financial recovery, not the proposed increased taxes, infrastructure positions, and excessive govt. spending that there exist no example historically across the entire globe where excessive govt. spending revived an economy and resulted in national economic recovery. Although I am an advocate of the environmental , arts and land procurement portions of New Deal, to dishonestly assign credit to our “Dear Leader” for rescuing the nation is not only blatantly dishonest but an insult to one of the greatest achievements in America’s entire history that was led and carried out by the female population alone
Alexandra, I am curious why you would suggest the addition of a self righteous, narrow minded, political ideologue such as Pelosi (or a Coulter as I mentioned) whose dedication and allegiance extends no further than serving self and special interest as figures who would positively impact the influence and numbers of female lawmakers across the globe?

Although I have been critical of both Pelosi and Coulter, they both provide excellent examples of powerful, influential female voices from completely opposite ends of the political spectrum. Societal structure involving values, norms, morals, etc. demands that individuals align over multiple levels of dedication towards either side of the political spectrum and this structure along with progression among society has resulted in the evolution of powerful voices within the female community that include, educators, lawmakers, community organizers, women’s rights advocates, behavioral counseling, practicing legal experts, environmental scientist, and by utilizing the political structure; this enabled the expansion influence and opportunity required as background essential towards being perceived as credible and demanding respect. The same structure that afforded individuals such as Nancy Pelosi the opportunity to excel and become a powerful, influential voice in the forum where laws are proposed, enacted, debated, and terminated, was incremental towards allowing women to gain a powerful voice, however that same black and white system now impedes the goal of increasing the number of women lawmakers. As society demands an association towards either political spectrum be designated with powerful female voices, especially in the field of law where political influence is rampant (labor law, environmental law, trail litigation, etc.); by only associating with a societal structure whose ideas are limited on both sides has created excessive stagnation as there exist an entire area of grey in the center of the spectrum that has been ignored and dismissed as non-existent or lacking credibility. It is this large area of grey where there is a shortage of strong female voices that adhere to a vision to see beyond a vision to see beyond black and white, left and right, where true inspired independent thought is supported and going against the grain is dependent upon the type of scenario which presents itself. It is this lack of strong voices whose allegiance does not reside with and political ideology or political party; however recognition is adhered towards acknowledging the merits of the institution of free thought. This large area of grey will demand credence as the strength of female lawmakers is reliant upon having the patience and respect that is required to entertain multiple perspectives and utilizing these experiences will enhance decision making capabilities and provoke insightful thought.

Increasing numbers of female lawmakers is attainable without imposing quotas, however in order for this dream to become a reality; societal progression in the field of law regarding expectations must become a reality where female lawmakers transition from being the minority towards a societal norm of where their presence makes up the majority with logical, sound, powerful, and voices of influential reason. If not for the efforts, intellect, and brilliance, etc. offered by the women in this country as mentioned during WWII; the unsung heroes whose efforts entailed putting the entire country on their backs and overcoming a depression by operating the factories and facilitating the needs of the war effort demand acknowledgement and an extension of gratitude. Should a progression towards moderation and promotion of independent thought as opposed to assigning credibility based upon political ideological evolve; a rapid expansion of female participants in the lawmaking sector will thrive as freedom of expression and ideas has and always will prevail over outdated political societal structures and ideologies.

FP editorial staffs, since when did objective analysis of news involving global policy measures/proposals/events require the inclusion of blatant partisan political endorsements involving policies and elected officials, regardless of party affiliation? Credibility questionable as IAFS World Affairs at CU no longer accepts FP submissions as credible objective resource due to erosion of objective analysis replaced with opinion op-ed articles. Is there sound reasoning for this transition? Renewal pressing considering transition to more reliable objective non partisan source dedicated towards communicating facts.

 

BRANDON

11:56 PM ET

March 26, 2010

Pardon me?

Pardon me?

 

SILVERZONE

2:58 AM ET

March 25, 2010

Nancy?

11% approval rating Nancy? Nothing to write home about, unless your home is SF, probably where she gets that 11%

 

B. ELLI COSE

9:21 AM ET

March 26, 2010

Ouch!

...the ultra leftist quasi socialist self righteous bitch Pelosi

There really is no justification for such derogatory language. One might disagree with Pelosi or Coulter or Clinton or Palin, but there is no excuse for such sexist hostility.

 

PM317

9:44 AM ET

March 28, 2010

Yep, if you have no

Yep, if you have no principles, you can get votes to pass a Republican healthcare plan as a Democrat plan and a President who himself lacks convictions and principles will sign it for you. That is her accomplishment and we want more of her? Not to mention how she stabbed women in the back during the 2008 Democratic primary, pulling the rug from under Hillary and her 18 million strong supporters. This is the woman we are supposed to applaud? No, thanks. This is purely misguided power and influence.

On the other subject, are you against affirmative action, I wonder. Quotas work to give a foot in the door for the women especially where there is egregious disparity in representation. And more successful examples lead to more participation and more natural representation. But of course yours is a much more sophisticated democracy (sarcasm alert) because women are so well represented here.

People did discern a well qualified candidate in 2008 and not because of her gender. See how well the electorate honed in on the more qualified candidate Hillary in 2008 but only to be thwarted by the establishment like Nancy Pelosi and others. Throw the media in there too along with the rest of them. Yep, wait another century or two to elect a woman president while poo-pooing other democracies who have already done that while applauding gender criminals like Pelosi. If you care about gender and especially women in politics, I would suggest not applauding Pelosi because what she did in the 2008 primary has set you back a generation or two in getting a woman president for this country.

 

AVERIL BONES

4:23 AM ET

March 31, 2010

Another Nancy Pelosi? Pick me!

No really! I'd love to be another Nancy Pelosi. AND I'm getting well toward being qualified. Pick me! Pick me!

 

JBAYER

6:13 PM ET

April 22, 2010

haha. Averil

Funny post Averil.

I think Nancy is good for the country. I do not always like her policies and like any politician she is leans a bit toward activity vs. progress for me. However, I think she shows great love of this country and for that deserves our respect.

She's a top 10 stock pick in a short term loan congress. (That's my idea of a joke.. not funny i know)

Also. per the PM317's comment, I am not sure she set back a women being elected president at all.