Why is it that even in public spaces where there are no objective barriers to women’s participation, still so few women get involved?

This question may well be drawing on a wrong assumption, says yet another man o:)

The experience you have shared is widely known, I am sure. But the set-up you have described is establishing quite substantial barriers for participation, because it requires a speaker – who has to present himself to the entire audience – to be an eloquent rhetorician or an arrogant idiot. I may be going out on a limb here when I say that there are, quite likely, eloquent rhetoricians in similar numbers among men and women, but there are definitely more arrogant idiots among us men – who believe that they have to say something so they are seen, that their position entitles them to blabber whatever into the microphone, who have this awful sense of being right while everybody else is wrong.

In situations, on the other hand, where the setup does not favor show-offs, but requires real dialogue, the person longing for a microphone has little to say (if they come or stay at all). When discussions take place in smaller settings, drawing on methods such as the World Café, calling for dialogue, requiring to listen to each other – that is where a lot of women, in my experience, speak out and often make strong statemens and bring the discussion forward.

Let me try to explain this carefully with two examples.

1. It is widely assumed that any argument claiming that men are more intelligent than women is, to phrase it positively, voodoo-science. Returning to our example of higher education, where women have finally begun to be successful in equal numbers, but have trouble to proceed academic careers nonetheless: this is where I would argue a quota – such as 40 % representation of each gender – makes most sense, at least for some time.

2. In Germany, where I currently live, migration from the Mediterranean is said to be concentrated on families from smaller villages and a comparably conservative mindset. In Germany, immigration policies have usually resulted in cultural groups residing in special parts of town, where their own culture and language thrive and, it is claimed in current debates, their German language skills and cultural integration suffers. (I have no numbers to back this up, and have the impression much of this consists of misleading generalisations, but for the sake of my illustration allow me to abuse the stereotypical image.) I have numbers, however, regarding the educational achievement of kids with a migrant background, which is remarkably lower than the general level of success. This is a situation where instruments as brought up by J Pearson below might be more useful.

What I am trying to exemplify, I guess, is that in many areas of power and influence traditionally dominated by men, women are disadvantaged at large (individual cases notwithstanding), and a general and generalising response seems well-placed. For aspects such as ethnic background and sexual orientation this seems to be less clear-cut and possibly less institutionalised, and therefore a general instrument may be the wrong response.

But Henning, let’s face it, you have a point – as far as I am aware, there is no universal consistent robust intellectual argument why gender quota should exist and other diversity quota should not.

*blush*

Women seem to have a hard time entering debates on the public sphere, offline and online. I notice it at each debate I go. Although the audience is usually gender-balanced, the people who dare take the micro to express their views are most of the time men. If you look at the blogosphere, again most political bloggers are men. This is actually one of the reasons why I decided to start a blog because yes, if it was still not clear enough, I’m a woman. Why is it that even in public spaces where there are no objective barriers to women’s participation, still so few women get involved?

I call it the ’silent’ discrimination because it is usually not intentional on the part of individuals but instead the result of an attitude that has been entrenched into us all from an early age as a result of discrimination throughout history.

Teaching gender equality is, unfortunately, not the answer. Will a young child really pay much attention to that lesson over stories that catch their imagination better, stories of these male leaders in wars, ruling empires etc. Of course values of equality should be impressed upon children but only a minority of people actively oppose equality and deliberately discriminate against women. The main source of the issue is in the attitudes that people have developed, and we must ensure we don’t transmit those attitudes to our children.

Their early education is the key here, as you suggested, but lessons on gender equality are not what is going to make the difference. Instead we need to meet them where they are and not where we are. Making sure the books they read show women as equals, making sure that heroines of history are equal parts of their history curriculum. The Joan of Arcs, Florence Nightingales and Boudica’s. Those are what young kids will remember, what will shape their attitudes of people.

You say : “No, of course not, they’re there to represent their individual countries.”
>The problem is that those individual countries are individually run (politically, economically, socially…) by men.

Perhaps the solution to the gender issue is to TEACH our children gender equality right from the beginning of their education (kindergarten). However, the same children are also taught history, which is mainly about men ruling the world (except for some kingdoms like the UK that have been more open-minded on gender issues (e.g. the UK), interpreting their religious god’s words as the “first child” should reign, as opposed to the “first MALE child” in former kingdoms such as France)…

History has been written by men, and the world has been ruled by men since the beginning of human times… for roughly 10,000 years. Is this pattern really going to change soon? A lot of improvement towards women’s rights has been made the last century, yet 100 years can’t compete with 10,000 years, it’s mathematics…

All that women want is to be recognized and represented politically, economically, and socially, they want to have the same salary as a man for the same exact job, they want to be treated as equals on an intellectual level. So political representation should not be a big deal… but women have to fight for that, men don’t. Because, let’s be honest, if women hadn’t raised for their rights, men would have never ever thought about gender equality…

But would the appointment of a female into one of the roles mentioned really bring greater equality for females, or result in a better represented female Europe? I seriously doubt it as the jobs these roles cover have universal effect on both males and females. The image shown of the European Council does indeed paint a very bleak picture for those of us who strive for gender equality, but are those leaders in the European Council to represent their gender? No, of course not, they’re there to represent their individual countries. Each and every one of them has been democratically elected into those offices by men and women alike, both genders holding equal votes.

Change must happen at the source of the problem and this source cannot be located in the upper echelons of government. No-one commenting on this article believes that women have any less ability to govern than men, but we need to be drawing more women into politics so that any gender imbalance is purely coincidental and we need to be tackling the notion that the best leader is an ‘alpha male’ character.
We should be ensuring that children are taught politics at a younger age as part of their curriculum so that both boys and girls can develop an interest in politics. Quotas are never the best solution but we need to fastrack progress to counter the attitudes that have sunk in so that we can avoid them being transmitted to younger generations. Gender quotas such as the 40% in Norway should be brought into practice in all appointed government positions. In the UK this must include the House of Lords in its current form and the Prime Minister’s cabinet so that female leaders can be seen to be in the centre of politics.

We need to see a change in attitudes that will change the silent discrimination of women in politics and we need radical and immediate action if we want to see progress towards gender equality. Only if we can enact these changes at the bottom will a European Council with a gender balance actually mean anything.