|
In the UK, some parties operate all women shortlists, for the simple reason that the local party branches statistically are more likely to choose a male candidate, even where strong female candidates are trying to get selected. The party branches tend to operate (often) along 'traditional' lines, they follow procedures and do things in ways, that they have done for decades, sometimes over a century. The result is that such party branches are ..... less than female friendly. The male members tend to dominate the local party because the female members are usually less interested in shouting and outright hostility in political discussions. Loooooot of dick waving gets done in party political meetings. That's not to say the gals don't engage in the fight too, but the men seem to be better at that side of the game (in my experience). The result is that women often go along to political meetings and get put off before they have a chance to get into it and start joining in. Also in my experience, the female members, whilst enjoying the political discussions, are a little more results oriented: having had the discussion they really get frustrated when it doesn't then go anywhere. Men get frustrated too, but I think the whole not being able to really influence anything at a national party level, puts women off faster than men.
There are other factors which affect women's involvement in politics and parties, those are just a sample. The net result is that political parties have membership which more male than female. For a woman to stand, she first needs to get selected, unless she goes independant and that is a serious disadvantage in most areas of the country. Getting a woman selected in a predominantly male party is so difficult, that even with the current shortlisting practices, at our current rate it would take another 200 years for women to catch men up in parliament, and another 400 years for women to catch up in the conservative benches.
|