I was just listening to a CBC program about women in politics. As usual, the theme was we need more women in politics, but the question was how do we achieve that.
To start with, it doesn't matter if my overlord is a male or female. What I care about is the restriction of my economic and personal freedom. But assuming we need politicians, why do we need more women in politics? I don't see it as a necessary conclusion.
If there is a particular characteristic of women that people want in a politician, does this have more to do with their gender or their political belief system? For example, in our Canadian parliament 16.9% of Conservatives are women compared 17.6% of Liberals. Women are equally represented on both parties. Therefore, it does not seem clear that women represent more a certain ideology than men.
Plus, if you want a certain ideology represented, wouldn't it make more sense to vote for the party or candidate who represents it, rather than voting for a woman hoping she does?
Many will say that women are less divisive and more conciliatory and therefore must be represented more because some prefer this type of politic. I would repeat what I said earlier: if you want a conciliatory candidate, vote for one, don't vote for a gender hoping that's what you'll get.
In any event, look at some famous female politicians and tell me if they are less controversial and more conciliatory. Think of Sarah Palin, Margaret Thatcher, for example. These women had two things in common: they were not conciliatory, and they are/were either loved and hated. Any politicians, male or female, who is too "nice", is usually not very well known or successful.
But the one thing people rarely consider is: what do people actually want? We have a democratic system where we vote for our leaders. Women are free to run just like men. Yet often the electorate chooses more men. If one believes in the values of a democracy, then you cannot slap the collective public on the wrist for "making the wrong decision". Who are YOU do decide what the RIGHT decision is? This is not a dictatorship.
Many claim that women don't have the same access to becoming a politicians because of family issues. Once again, because I believe in human freedom, I hate to say it, but this is a personal choice. Families don't arise accidentally. They are a deliberate choice. Women can choose to have and raise a family, and this will limit their options. Hopefully they will recognize the benefit of having a family entails a cost, but also provides benefit. Some say men should do more. If a woman feels that way and wants a man to contribute 50% to housework, then she should seek out such a man.
It's unjust for a woman to steal money from me to provide her with free daycare simply because she made certain life choices. Would we have sympathy for a man who agrees to do 90% of the housework and then runs for politics? Would we say we must provide him with a free babysitter? If so, I suggest you go ahead and provide this service to politicians who need it.
Choices have consequences and I should not be forced to bear the cost against my will. Many people have many life situations they must deal with, but who should pay the price? Of course, they should, or their family or friends. It's about voluntary interaction. Especially when those choices are freely made.
Finally, I would think many women would not want any unfair advantages provided to them at others' expense. Where is the sense of accomplishment? If a woman makes it to a political career, but only because she was the recipient of all kinds of affirmative action and government handouts, does it carry the same level of pride as if she had accomplished it on her own? I doubt it.
No comments:
Post a Comment