My home constituency of St. Helens South and Whiston is being subjected to an all-women shortlist before the next election after Shaun Woodward MP announced he was to step down and retire. This strategy has been used since the 1990's as women constituted less than 10% of parliamentary MPs. So in an attempt to make parliament more representative, certain parties (predominately the Labour Party) have been implementing the strategy on 'safe-seats', like St. Helens.
Personally I think the suffragettes would be rolling in their graves; they fought for equal rights, not special privileges and although I agree that parliament should be representative of the citizens in the state, I disagree that all-women shortlists (AWS) are the way to go about making it so.
Not only is this discrimination against men but this is positive discrimination against women. It's almost patronising that women have been given the special privilege, it is as if they cannot gain the majority vote (whilst competing with men) on their own. Many women who have won through AWS (e.g. Luciana Berger MP for Liverpool Wavetree) have expressed that they would have rather won in an open contest and wished they felt they truly deserve their position. Lib Dem MP Jo Swinson famously wore a t-shirt emblazoned with the slogan "I am not a token woman" so it is not surprising that women who win a parliamentary seat through AWS feel inferior. What is more important, having more women MP's, through undemocratic means, or having women who don't feel inferior? One may argue that a woman feels inferior constantly in this patriarchal society yet I believe that an AWS would further enhance this and patronise further.
To me a democracy has to allow for any citizen to stand for election regardless of the gender they choose to align with. By imposing AWS you take away the right for men to stand, for women to come into office fairly and for citizens in the consistency to vote for who they think is best for the job. Surely it is better to have an MP who has gained the majority vote from their constituency because they will do a better job than others (regardless of gender) than to have a better ratio of women to men in the House of Commons. I would argue women do not need to be equally represented in parliament (although it would be nice if a democratic vote evened it out that way) to be equally represented in society. I disagree with certain feminists who argue that only women can properly relate women and stand for their views. An MP should be able address all issues in society equally otherwise they should be sacked!
The same parties debated bringing in all gay shortlists and all black shortlists etc... But soon turned back on that idea for obvious reasons as it leads into dangerous territory. So why are AWS still used? The real reason is that they are too concerned with the here and now (and getting equality and representation on paper) rather than trying to properly educate, inform and understand voters. This may take longer, yes, but if it means that women can get to the aim of 50% representation in parliament fairly and without special privileges then I'm all for it.
The government need to dispose of all-women shortlists in order to strive for true democracy and equality. They need to tackle the root of the problem first and stop feigning equality using their token women.
