Gender Quotas for Politics

When I first started studying political gender quotas in my masters program, I was wholeheartedly against them. I thought it was a copout - women should be able to be elected based on merit alone. Besides, I didn't think it would look good - people could easily discount the great work of a female politician by remarking that she's just a "quota" politician. Finally, I'd watched gender quotas for college admissions fail in my own country, and didn't think applying them elsewhere would be much better.

But as we discussed this topic, I began to see why people favor quotas. Women comprise only 19.8% of the population of elected bodies around the world. Since they make up just over half the entire population, this is a gross misrepresentation. You might think that this statistic is being brought down by less developed countries, and you'd be right, sort of. Countries like the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea and Nigeria, at 0%, 0.9% and 3.7% respectively, bring down that number. But countries like Japan, at 11%, Italy, at 21% and France, at 18.9%, contribute to it, too. Even countries where women's rights are fundamental, like the UK, are still only at 21%. Or where a woman is president, like Slovakia or Mali, doesn't help much, as they are only at 16% and 10% respectively. Even the US, where women have been voting for almost 100 years, women only make up 16.8% of the house and senate.

Think about that for a second.

Women have been voting in this country for almost 100 years. And yet we're still not equally represented in our federal legislature. Why?

(Let me pause here a second to mention that I'm not going to write about why it's important that women are equally represented in their elected bodies. Questions about whether men can justly represent the needs of women is an entire post of its own. For the purposes of this post, I'm assuming everyone would like to have a proportional representation in their elected body that is equal to their representation in the population at large.)

There are two theories on this I tend to agree with. The first is that, since we're all used to seeing male politicians, we tend to vote for them. People vote for what they know (because no one likes change!) and what they know is male politicians. The second theory holds that politics is still a man's game, and the way we evaluate and elect our politicians hasn't made room for women yet. Remember the hubub about Hilary's pantsuits and Palin's red jackets? Or when Clinton showed a smidge of cleavage? I don't remember seeing anything about Romney's suits, or whether Bush's pants were too tight. Even the fact that women make up 50% of the workforce has not change attitudes about their ability to be political leaders.

This is where I begin to see quotas as effective. If we need to all shift our collective minds to see politicians as both male and female, quotas can help. A study by Beaman, quoted by Pande and Ford, proves that gender quotas can reduce discriminatory attitudes towards female leaders. Furthermore, as more female leaders are elected, the less likely it is that the media will focus on their outfits rather than their politics. Furthermore, as young women see more women as political leaders, they will be able to see themselves in those positions, as well. There are many more positive impacts observed from political gender quotas listed in this article: Pande and Ford.

I don't see gender quotas as a universal solution to the gender gap in politics, nor do I support them being in place forever. I think they are a temporary solution that can help boost our political systems in the right direction. Once parliaments have reached an equal representation (this % would have to be agreed on ahead of time), the quotas can be removed.

Then maybe we won't have to deal with the embarrassing problem of convening congressional panels about women's health with no women.

By the way, do you know who is leading the world in the percentage of women in parliament? Find out here.

There are tons of resources about political gender quotas. Here are a few websites to help you get started:
Quota Project
Country Statistics on Gender Representations in Parliament
Dahlerup and Freidenvall 2003
Holding Half the Seats article

FrontlineSMS

While I was in London last year, I volunteered for an incredible organization called FrontlineSMS. They recently published the blog post I wrote about my experience. Please check out their organization and the post! Experiences of a FrontlineSMS Volunteer.

Chicken Wings

For residents of San Francisco, being asked for money is part of a normal day. Though I feel a bit guilty (I am Catholic, after all), I'm generally comfortable saying, "No, sorry" to whatever is asked of me.

But the other day something very different happened, which jarred me out of my usual yes-I'm-answering-you-but-I'm-really-thinking-about-my-own-life response to panhandlers. As I walked into the Whole Foods parking lot, I was asked for change, promptly said sorry and kept walking. But then the woman standing on the sidewalk asked me something I hadn't anticipated. "Do you think you could get me some chicken wings?" Perplexed by this extra, different, question, I simply reverted to my usual negative answer, "No, sorry, I can't!" and walked into the store.

This incident stuck with me for the rest of the day. At first I was bugged by the answer I gave her. The answer "I can't" is much different than the, "No, sorry" I usually give. The latter is an answer depicting choice, the former is not. Furthermore, it was a lie. There was nothing barring me from getting her some food. I was physically able. I was about to walk into one of the most expensive grocery stores in the nation, so clearly I had enough money. I wasn't morally or religiously opposed to buying her some chicken wings. The correct answer to her question was actually, "Yes I can. But I don't want to."

And that bugged me even more. Why didn't I want to help this woman?  First told myself that I didn't have enough time, which could have been true because I was on a half-hour lunch break. But a half-hour is more than enough time to eat a sandwich and pick up something extra. Then I told myself that since I work in the neighborhood, this woman would expect me to buy her something every time I saw her. But that wasn't right, either. How could I base a decision on something that hadn't happened yet? Finally, clearly trying anything to appease my guilt, I told myself, "Well, its not my responsibility to help her!"

UGH.

Having studied Sociology and International Development and worked for non-profits my entire adult career, I've spent over a decade trying to convince people that we are responsible for one another's well-being. And yet, here was this woman right in front of me asking for my help, and I was trying to rationalize my non-action by convincing myself of something opposite of the main tenet of my professional career (and personal life). Why would I write about how horrible life is for women in Cambodia or the Congo, thousands of miles away, and yet ignore the person right in front of me? Having worked and studied international development for the past 4 years, have I become too removed from the needs of the people in my own backyard?

At a party a number of years ago, I was asked about my choice to study and work in international development while there are so many problems I could work on right here. I mentioned that I had worked as a social worker at a women's shelter nearby, and though it was rewarding, I burned out in less than a year. I was hoping international development work removed the situation just enough that one didn't get completely overwhelmed.

But perhaps I've been too far removed. Maybe in my attempt to connect myself to people thousands of miles away, I've forgotten about the community I live in. I wish I could say I went back and bought the chicken wings that were requested of me, but I didn't. But maybe next time I won't be so quick to say no.

What do you think about international development work vs. social work in one's own community? Is there one that is more important? If you do development work, how do you stay connected to your community? If you were in my situation and were asked the same question, what would you have done?

In the Land of Blood and Honey

Last week I was lucky enough to view a free pre-screening of In the Land of Blood and Honey, the new movie written and directed by Angelina Jolie. It was provided free by the Global Fund for Women, an amazing Bay Area organization providing much-needed funds to organizations focused on women's issues around the world. This movie focuses on two characters, a Serbian soldier and a Bosnian muslim, who fell in love before the war started, and were reunited on different sides of the war when the woman, Ajla,  is captured, along with other women, to be cook, concubine, and maid to the Serbian soldiers.

Though I was warned by the friend who came with me that the movie "looked intense," based on a preview she saw, I wasn't worried. I had read books about genocide, watched documentaries about war crimes, and just went through a year reading horrific stories about violence against women. I figured I'd be fine.

WOW.

In the first half-hour of the movie, I jumped so many times I was afraid the person sitting next to me was going to hold my hand just to keep me in my seat. Furthermore, the succession of horrific scenes being played out before me seemed to never end. As soon as you thought, "This must be the worst of what they endured," another scene would show an even worse situation. I remember thinking maybe halfway through the movie, when will this relentlessness stop? Apparently, as mentioned by one of the panelists in the discussion after the movie, this is exactly what Jolie was going for. With me, she succeeded.

However, one of the questions I came away with after watching this movie was whether it needed to be so graphic in order to evoke the emotions Jolie was trying to create. Movies are supposed to evoke emotion, and the good ones always do. But what are the boundaries by which a movie needs to stretch, or cross, to evoke an emotional response that will provide sympathy for the characters?

Jolie does explore incredibly important and poignant issues, especially wartime rape. Though this happens in most, if not all, armed conflicts, in the Bosnian war it was used to systematically humiliate and denigrate Muslim women, and force them to have Serbian children. Furthermore, the International Criminal Tribunal of the former Yugoslavia was the first to recognize rape as a crime against humanity. This was an incredibly important victory for the victims of this horrific crime.

I do believe that using mass media to evoke sympathy for victims of violence is incredibly important, and especially when it comes to conflicts like this. How many people didn't know about the genocide in Rwanda before Hotel Rwanda came out? But there is a saying in the international development/non-profit communities that describes the unrelenting scenes of destitution and despair that are often shown in order to evoke sympathy for those living in these conditions: the "pornography of poverty." Taking pictures of extreme suffering can be borderline (or, in some cases, completely) voyeuristic. Can depicting images of suffering on the screen be considered in the same light? As a friend questioned, what kind of society are we that we need to reproduce highly visual experiences to feel “sympathy” for these women? In the SF Chronicle review of the movie, Mick LaSalle states of the relationship between Ajla and Danijel, "Gradually, the awful thought begins to dawn that Jolie might actually see this setup as erotic." I'm not sure I agree with him, but I understand the point he's trying to make. Is Jolie too enthusiastic when depicting others' pain? 

Have you seen In the Land of Blood and Honey? What did you think? Was the depiction of life in war enough to evoke emotion, or too much, or not enough? What did you think about the relationship between Ajla and Danijel? Horror movies also depict sensational images of pain and suffering - is it better when the scenes are fictional? Is it getting too close to censorship to put boundaries around what should/shouldn't be shown in movies?