Lee's random blog

So the press have dug around into Louise Mensch MPs past and discovered, shock horror, that she ‘probably’ took some drugs at a nightclub when she was in her twenties. Why this is news is frankly beyond me but why this has come out now, is not. The press are doing their thing, taking on someone that has taken them on. The ‘probably’ is a bit of a give away. There are lots of ‘probablys’ floating around the News of the World scandal. True or not, a ‘probably’ can hurt.

In the case of Louise Mensch I doubt it will hurt that much for that long because she had the good sense to own up to it in a way that takes the sting out of it. Obama did the same when he was accused of taking drugs in his youth. Lots of people take drugs in their youth and some into their older youth so it’s not the vote loser that people may assume it is. Not that I’m going to necessarily talk about that. What I am interested in is the effect that this sort of press coverage has on people who might have been considering becoming an MP.

My friends tell me that no sane person wants to be an MP in this country and I have to say, there is some sense to that claim. The British public really doesn’t like it’s elected representatives. MPs are the second least trusted group of people in the country, just slightly more than journalists, which in this day and age is really saying something. (Not all journalists are bad, I know, I know). Who, in their right mind would want to play a role that is this hated?

Not only that, but when I ask women to come forward to stand as MPs lots of them say no and refer to the treatment that they might expect from the press, treatment a lot like Louise Mensch is experiencing today. They worry about their past and how that might impact on their families. It takes a brave woman to want to air her dirty laundry in public. We know that female politicians get treated differently from male politicians in scandals. Remember when Liz Truss, Tory hopeful was deselected from running for Parliament after having an affair? Some might think this was an appropriate response from the party but you only have to look at the fact it was a Tory MP she had the affair with, who quite happily kept his place. Is there a double standard? Yes indeed.

Good on Louise Mensch. She’s essentially saying, ‘Yes I’ve had a life. So what?’. I agree. Isn’t that what we want? To elect people to lead us who have lived? People that have had jobs outside of politics, who know what it is to battle with life, those that have experienced money worries, maybe even battled with addiction. People who know how relationships can go wrong and the work needed to keep them going. People that have allowed themselves to veer from the carefully crafted story of who and what a politician is, a story that can only end in disappointment for the voters because we are all human, full of fragilities and vulnerabilities. It’s a sham to pretend otherwise.

Lets select and elect more human beings please. And let’s not sit quietly as the press dig around in peoples lives, bringing up stuff that frankly just doesn’t matter.

Previously posted in The Huffington Post and Lib Dem Voice

(As posted in the Huffington Post last week)

Theresa May, as UK Home Secretary, has one of the most important jobs in government. Many grand men have held the post before her, however, by virtue of her being born female she also has another role, Minister for Women (and Equalities). The ‘women’ part of this supplementary role is nonsense and should be done away with as soon as possible. A cursory look will tell us why.

Firstly, there is no correlative Minster for Men. The reason being most men would find the very concept bizarre. What sense does a Minister for Men make when the very category of men is so wide and diverse? What on earth would a Minster for Men do, what purpose would he serve? Aren’t men’s interests already covered by the departments that deal with the economy, education, defence, energy, transport, etc? Yes of course they are. And we have a range of political parties that men can chose from in order to express their particularly nuanced view on each of these issues. The notion of having a Minister for Men over and above this is redundant.

So why does this common sense not apply when we are dealing with the female of the species? The category ‘women’ is in fact larger, when seen purely in numbers, due to women comprising the majority of the population. There is a stunning range and diversity of women; old, young, tall, short, intelligent, not, right wing women, left wing women, Lib Dem women, apolitical women, to name a few. In fact in the UK women even make up the majority of graduates so we can’t say they lack diversity in academic interest. So why a Minster for Women?

The answer can be found by looking in two places. Firstly, as feminists have noticed, when there are no women in positions of power the needs of women get overlooked. They have argued that we need someone specifically tasked with paying attention to these issues to ensure that resources get adequately channelled to support these needs. There is some truth to this as it applies to women qua women (rape centres and battered women shelters for example) but for the most part what they are really pointing to is women as mothers. And herein lies the problem.

Not all women are mothers but we’ve been solely defined by that role for so long that culture still can’t conceive of us in any other way. There are substantial issues faced by mothers in our society such as access to childcare, an ability to return to work after childbirth, etc. But these issues are parental issues not women’s issues. Anyone taking time out to care for children will face these challenges and increasingly our men have a desire to step into this role. They often find that they can’t because parenting is largely still seen as women’s work. Just look at the disparity between maternity and paternity leave. It tells men that society does not condone them being at home with their children.

If we want to open up the home to more men, to allow them to participate in the raising of their children, which allows women to give up some of the burden of childcare so they can participate in business and politics, we need to move these ‘issues’ from the purview of the Minister for Women and into a department that deals with parenting. Get men involved because when we apply the tag ‘women’s issues’, we exclude them.

The second place we can look to see why a Minister for Women is a dumb idea is in the concept of in-groups and out-groups. Those working in the area of diversity and inclusion are all too aware of the inevitable forces of power dynamics. There are in-groups and out-groups everywhere we look and we are all part of them. In government and business, in most positions of power in fact, men are the in-group and women the out-group. (It’s actually white men that are the in-group but that’s another post.)

The in-group, whatever demographic holds the power, has a set of norms which it adheres to and a set of nuanced distinctions it understands. There is meaning conveyed in the colour and pattern of an old school tie, a crest pinkie ring, an accent. These norms need not be voiced but the in-group understands them only too well and takes action based upon them.

The in-group doesn’t have the same level of distinctions with regard to the out-group. They think the out-group are all the same. They can’t read the out-group and see the complexity and range that exists within it, hence the stereotyping that occurs around race, gender, class and religion. ‘All Muslims are…” “The Tories are all evil”, etc. It’s wrong and it’s explainable by in and out-group dynamics. We all make judgements based on our lack of distinctions of groups that are ‘other’ from us.

Whilst that might be understandable in our private lives it’s certainly not acceptable that it’s enshrined in our government and that is just what is happening when we appoint a Minister for Women. The in-group (men) assume that all the full range and diversity of the needs of women can be covered by this role because they have no sense of what is actually contained in the category. Most so called ‘women’s issues’ could be covered by other departments. And they should be, with powerful, political women in those departments alongside men ensuring that resources are allocated.

What does need to be addressed in our society though, is the status of women. Women are still not held as equals to men, in any area. The pay gap reflects this, as does the lack of TV coverage of women’s sport and the fact that female politicians clothes are reported on more often that the contents of their minds. These things all point to the lack of understanding of the distinctions in the category ‘women’ and the status that is given to it. This is partly because we have been solely identified with being mothers for so long that the public world still does not know how to recognise and value the contribution of women as people.

Of course some may suggest that if we get rid of the Minster for Women role we will be putting the course of women’s empowerment back 20 years. Possibly, unless we replace it with the role such as the one they have in Canada and Australia: a Minister for the Status of Women. This Minister could be male or female, as there are plenty of men interested in increasing the status of women. Under a banner like this all people could participate; together we could make a difference and work to bring the talents of women to the political and business table. This would take a radical shift in thinking on behalf of government, moving from seeing women as a special interest group (the women’s vote?) to being another category of person, capable of intellectual rigour, creativity, public service as well as childbirth. Bring on a Minister who can usher in the time of women as human beings, in all their complexity.

(As posted in Huffington Post last week)

If you were listening to right leaning UK politicians and political commentators recently you’d think so. Last week Peter Oborne was pointing to the decline of the nuclear family and the impact that has on care for the elderly. He argued that the welfare state was originally designed to supplement the care and support already given to the needy by the family, not to replace it. He portrayed a strong family, which felt responsible for the future of itself in a largely self-contained way, not seeing state support as the default option. In the article he refers to the crucial role that women play in this traditional family situation.

“And so it goes on – the daughter’s labours are in a hundred little ways shared with the older woman whose days of child-bearing (but not of child-rearing) are over. When the time comes for the mother to need assistance, the daughter reciprocates by returning the care she has herself received.”

This nod to the place of women chimes with the comments made recently by David Willetts, Conservative universities minister about the impact of feminism on the employment opportunities available to men. The Guardian reported:

“Willetts said feminism was probably the “single biggest factor” for the lack of social mobility in Britain, because women who would otherwise have been housewives had taken university places and well-paid jobs that could have gone to ambitious working-class men.”

Of course women were deeply offended by these words, understandably so but, the fact of the matter is, Oborne and Willetts are right. Women’s actions have changed the nature of family life and the nature of the job market for men and we all know it. Women stepping outside the home, away from the traditional roles which have been their only option for hundreds, if not thousands of years, has indeed changed everything. How could it not? Men and women’s futures are intertwined. They are so connected that when one gender shifts its orientation to life, claims another role, this cannot but help impact the life, opportunities and role of the other.

Men left Platos cave years ago, to forge a new future in culture but women didn’t go with them. Men have been free to create, to discover, to adventure, to go into politics and business largely because they didn’t have to bear and raise children. Women were, until very recently indeed, totally and utterly defined by that role. Why bother educating women if you believe their real value in society is the production of children? It makes sense when seen from that perspective. In some parts of the world it’s still seen from that perspective.

But the western cultural revolution of the 1960’s and 1970’s changed all that. Eve decided to eat from the tree of knowledge herself and now women are revelling in their education. New research shows that 43% of educated western Gen X women (aged between 33 and 46) have opted to be childfree. In a world that gives very little status and absolutely no financial reward to having children, this is a rational choice for a person to make. Rational when viewed from the level of the individual, the level we value in western culture, but utterly catastrophic for the species.

The political right understand this. They see that the writing is on the wall for humanity if women are not willing to assume their place as the mothers of us all. And this is problematic because women are not going to quietly go back to this life of unpaid, low status, grindingly hard work. Society cannot go back, we can only go forward. We evolve or die.

Rather than wishing for what has come before we need to ask hard questions of ourselves and create something new. What structures do we need to create that allow women to contribute to society with their brains as well as their wombs? If the majority of our graduates are now women and we want that talent in our businesses and political parties, are we willing to change how we work in order to allow them to contribute whilst ensuring that we still have enough children? These are not just questions for women, these are questions for all of us.

Faced with the complexity of these challenges it’s understandably easier to say ‘let the women stay at home and raise children.’ Easier to wish for what worked so well for society before. And this is not about men dictating the terms, it’s easier for women to say this too. It’s been our role for so long that we are compelled to it. We often unthinkingly slide into this function and then lead lives of confused desperation because we haven’t yet figured out how to do it differently.

Women are capable of more than childrearing, difficult and valuable as that is, and culture needs us to give more, it needs our intellectual contribution as truly equal partners to men. The challenges we face in the future such as peak oil, population aging, water shortages, require the best minds of our generation and those may be sitting in female bodies. Do we really want to ignore that potential contribution and encourage women to go back home? I think quite the opposite, we should be encouraging women to take their place in business and politics and solve the problem of making life more family friendly, so both men and women can share life in both the private and the public worlds.

Does this mean, as Willetts suggests, that we will take men’s jobs? Yes and no. Being in the job market means we will take jobs but they are in no sense men’s anymore. That ship has sailed. We are facing a reconstruction of our society on the scale of that required when we disallowed that other source of unpaid work, slaves. I’m sure there were those arguing for the slaves to go back to work, servitude being in some way seen as their natural place. But we evolved, both morally and structurally. We need to do the same again. Are we ready?

David Cameron measuring ‘wrong type of happiness’ | Politics | guardian.co.uk.

Apparently the guy who influenced David Cameron to measure the nations happiness now thinks we should measure ’flourishing’ instead. This is a no brainer. Way, way back Aristotle had it right when he said that people need to flourish, to live the good life. Happiness is just a mood, an emotion and as such, passes. Flourishing is a state of life and may contain many different moods.

Maybe the shift to flourishing represents a welcome evolution from short term thinking to longer term thinking.

As I’ve been watching what has happened in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya alongside the UKs anti-tax avoidance movement, I can’t help but wonder if we are witnessing a moral revolution.

In the Middle East it’s plain to see the causes. These regimes have been run by dictators for years, squashing freedom of expression and collective action, siphoning money into Swiss bank accounts while the price of food rises. What initially seemed to be valid power structures have failed to meet the needs of the people, have been shown to produce terribly unequal outcomes for the inhabitants of the nation.

That the people are taking to the streets to demand regime change, food price reduction and democratic elections is understandable. They have personally and collectively developed faster than the power structures, they have outgrown them and their tolerance has disappeared. In some cases their intolerance has been so great they have been willing to die for progress.

In the UK it takes a different form. UK Uncut has successfully inspired people to come out on the streets to demonstrate in favour of new tax laws. The anger here is about the ‘tops’, banks and telecoms companies and the like, not paying what is seen to be their due in corporation tax, not contributing their ‘fair share’ to the nation. That this is set against what some see as ideologically driven cuts in public services only adds fuel to the fire.

Whether these companies are doing anything illegal or not is in some ways not the main issue. What does seem curious and exciting is that we are struggling to articulate a desire for a new morality in our nation, a new social contract between the players. We ‘know’ that it’s wrong for the corporations to make billions of pounds when people are potentially losing their jobs. We ‘know’ that it’s wrong for our Prime Minster to be heading to the newly liberated Middle East to sell more weapons, weapons that we have watched people die from. We ‘know’ that it’s wrong to sell off our public forests. And we are confused by the fact that our laws, our leaders, don’t share our moral sentiments.

But what is our knowing based on? Knowing the difference between right and wrong behaviour is a moral issue. And morality has to be based on something. For some, its based on the word of God, in whatever form. For a secular nation though, it need to be based on something else, some conception of ‘the good life’, a shared story of what it means to be a responsible and contributing citizen.

We need a new social contract in the UK. We need to have a national debate on what rules we really want to play by. Are we committed to paying our fair share of tax? We certainly want the banks to do it but are we all prepared to play our part? That means no cash in hand work, no undeclared income, no black market activities at all. It means a set of shared values that apply to all levels of the hierarchy, all classes, all industries.

Are we ready for that? I think, quite possibly we are beginning to be.

I was recently contacted by Dr Catriona Burness, a researcher in the field of women in politics. She has published a report on Women and Parliaments in the UK.  She says:

The report presents a factual snapshot of the current position in each elected parliamentary chamber in the UK. All elected women are listed alongside tables showing representation by party. The positions of the parties represented in the chambers in relation to candidate selection for Westminster and the devolved chambers have been summarised in essays on each parliament/assembly. It brings together information that is otherwise available but dispersed.

An independent writer/researcher and consultant on politics, I produced the handbook with the support of the JRSST Charitable Trust (endowed by The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Ltd).  The work is timely now as the UK is at a political crossroads, contemplating constitutional and electoral reform, and with elections due in the devolved chambers in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales in 2011. There are fears that women’s representation will fall at the next elections for the devolved chambers whilst equal representation remains elusive.

Please feel free to download the entire document.

Burness Women and Parliaments in the UK

There have been a couple of articles in the press recently which have prompted me to write about a curious tale alive in our midst. It’s this: There is such a thing as the ‘womens vote’ and politicians are attending to it.

Recently David Milliband announced that he’ll “be a leader for women”.  There is an letter in the Guardian today where various people declare that in fact it’s Ed Milliband that has the concerns of women at heart.  But what on earth are they talking about?

There is a fallacy in their thinking and a dangerous one at that.

Women account for 51% of the British population.  At the last census they numbered somewhere in the region of 30.4 million compared to 29.7 million men. Yes, that’s right, women outnumber men in our fair land.

But you wouldn’t think it because the popular narrative is that ‘women’ are a special interest group with special interest needs.  Hence the reason for the Labour leaders to appeal to them, to adjust their approach for them.  Hence the need for Womens pages in the national papers, for there to be a Minister for Women in the cabinet.

These are all total nonsense.

How can the majority of the population be a special interest group? Surely it’s only minorities that qualify as such. Men are the minority.  Why not have articles on how the leaders will attract the mens vote? Why not have a Minister for Men? Mens pages in the papers?  Because we would see this as ridiculous.  We would recognise that within the group 29,700,000 men there are a multitude of interests, a thoroughly dazzling interweaving set of complexities, needs, wants, backgrounds, income levels, shoe size, viewpoints etc. We’d know that to speak of the ‘mens vote’ was facile.

So why do our media and elected representatives make this facile ascription to women, when they constitute the larger group? And why do we let them away with it?

I’ve just started watching the first series of Mad Men. In the second episode Draper asks his boss, ‘What do women want?”. The reply, “Who cares.” I almost spat my drink out, such was the honesty of this response.  Though we would never hear that being said in public nowadays, that doesn’t mean it’s not being thought.

We apply this grouping tag to women, we lump them all together because frankly we can’t be bothered investigating the complexity. Women are not wholly relevant to public life, they are a mystery that will never be solved because nobody is interested in solving it. They are tolerated in business, patronised in politics. Things work as they are, right?  There is no need to change anything. And so it rolls on and on.

In actual fact, the reason we will never get an answer to this question is because there isn’t one. The very question sits inside the fallacy itself.

Pic by daveynin

A few of you have asked what I said at my talk earlier in the week.  Here are some of the themes.

Women make up 60% of all graduates in Europe and the US this year. In January 2010, for the first time, there were more women in employment in the US than men.  Women have become the majority of the workforce. Yet, only 12% of FTSE 100 directorships are held by women.  This is clearly not because there are no women working that can rise to be leaders or because women are not bright enough to do the job.  Britain also just became 74^th in the world in terms of the percentage of female MP’s, behind countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and recently overtaken by Nicaragua, the Philippines and Uzbekistan.

Why is this? We know a lot about the barriers to women progressing which exist within organizations.  Women still bear the burden of childcare so can work fewer hours if they have to pick up children from school, etc. A lot of opportunities go to people who can schmooze in the evenings and, as many women are essentially doing a second shift when they get home, they cannot attend these events. Women ‘step out’ of work to undertake the social service of producing more consumers yet are penalized for this unpaid service when they get back to work.  Work is set up for an old fashioned male paradigm when the workers and professionals were supported at home by unpaid help, (women) so they could work all the hours possible and get ahead.  And women were (perhaps) happy to be at home looking after children, when the mans wage covered all the costs.  This does not match the reality of our countries aspirations today.

There are also internal barriers to women excelling as leaders.  Women tend not to celebrate their successes in quite the same way as men do.  One client of mine expressed her dismay as her male colleagues went running to the boss to crow about what they had achieved on a shared project as she just got on with the work. Of course, those men then got promoted as they were noticed, whilst she did not. Women are not as canny about what it takes to get on in a masculine corporate culture, nor do they want to do what it takes when it conflicts with their values.  Women wait to be invited to run for public office for example, according to Marie Wilsons research at the White House Project.

One of the most telling pieces of research that the White House Project did was on perceived leadership characteristics. They sat a test group in front of small screens with a dial, and showed them clips of men and women speaking.  The test group were asked to dial up when the speaker displayed leadership characteristics and dial down when they displayed characteristics that were not associated with leadership. When the women came on screen people dialed down.  Our very concept of the term ‘leader’ is masculine. We do not internally regard women as leaders so we have a great deal of work to do to meet the masculine ideal.  This is why a lot of women’s leadership programmes are about training women to be more like men.

As far as politics goes, women largely don’t want to get involved because of the way that female MP’s are treated.  Remember Jacqui Smiths cleavage being of more interest to the media than her words as the new Home Sec?  That kind of reporting is pathetic and childish, frustrating and nearly impossible to relate to.  Also, generally speaking, women do not profess an interest in politics per se but will express an interest in issues, such as education, health and community relations. These things are the domain of politics but your average woman in the street does not see herself as having much to say about ‘politics’ because it has become synonymous with economics and defense.  Topics that traditionally men think of when they relate to politics. Of course, that is why we need both genders in politics, attending to both groups of issues.

Of course, this is not a crime that has been perpetrated on women.  Far from it.  We have been complicit in this set of arrangements.  We have accepted the status quo, we have left work in our droves when it got too hard.  We have not led in a way that made a difference to our culture.  It’s time to do so.  We need to step up and bring our voices to the table, for the sake of the women coming along behind us and for the children of the nation. We need to put ourselves forward for public office, stand an MP’s run for local council, as that is the only way that we will reach the tipping point necessary for the culture to change to something more female friendly.  Nobody is going to do this for us, we need to do it ourselves.

(This last bit of my talk wasn’t so popular…)

20 years after attending my first political conference, I find myself sitting in the audience for the launch rally at the Lib Dems spring conference.  After being welcomed by a plethora of prospective parliamentary candidates, a quarter of whom I gladly noted were women, the big guns of party come out to inspire us, to rouse us for the remaining short time before the election.

Paddy Ashdown came on first and appealed directly to our heads.  The country faces four great threats, he says and goes on to tell us why the Lib Dems are the party to address them.  The first one, the economic crisis, basically needs to be handled by Vince Cable.  Given the fact that Dr Cable predicted the collapse, we trust him to come up with some sort of way through the mess.  Yes, I can buy that and as he pointed out, you need to vote Lib Dem to get Vince Cable as Chancellor.

Paddy Ashdowns style, tone and rhetoric are all convincing and moved me to follow his logic calmly and sanely, to understand deeply that the Lib Dems are an option this election. Perhaps the only real option.  But for all his logic, and he was inspirational, it was Shirley Williams that captured my heart and made me want to act.

Dame Williams reminded the audience that we get involved in politics because we have a passion for a just society.  However we start, we share a desire to live in a country that is just and fair.  Right now, it is clear that we do not.  Though I can intellectually grasp this, Shirley’s words reached through to my heart when she asked ‘Why are we not furious?’ about the state of housing, our classroom sizes, the bankers bonuses.  Good question, why are we not furious? Because, she says, we have lost the capacity for indignation.  We allow so much to slide by us, to go un-noticed, unchallenged.  She reminded us that we are called upon now to step up and make a difference. As I listened to her I felt she was awakening our morality.

Both speakers had good points to make, though through appealing to different parts of me.  Great orators know this, that to fully engage with an audience takes more than a rational argument, it takes something that appeals to the heart, that stirs the spirit.  I think politics needs more of what Shirley Williams was offering, more of an appeal to that part of us that is more that just logic.  Just logic is what created the financial crisis.  Just logic is what produces poverty.  Its humanity that will be required to solve these problems. Humanity includes logic but logic is not sufficient.  More is required.  An ability to feel, to connect with another human being, to be moved to action by an individuals predicament, by the state of the world, that is what is required of us now.  This is what will engage people back in politics, the sense of making a difference.  We need to be more like Shirley Williams, ready to accept that we need to stand up and be counted, or there will be no-one left to do the counting.

By now you will have seen that India’s parliament approved a bill on Tuesday 9th of March to reserve a third of all state legislature and parliamentary seats for women.  You would think from reading the UK press that this is an exceptional move but actually around 40 nations have some form of quota system in place for increasing the percentage of female MP’s.  The UK as a whole does not advocate the use of quotas, although the Labour Party has used this fairly unpopular device for a number of years, which resulted in the UK briefly rising the global chart after the 1997 election.  The UK currently ranks as 73rd out of 187 in terms of the percentage of female MP’s, behind countries such as Uganda, Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.  We still fare better than the USA, which has 16.8%, and India which currently has only 10.8% female MP’s, hence the need for quotas.

Those that oppose the idea of quotas often appeal to meritocracy as an ideal for the selection and election of our members of parliament.  They say that to introduce quotas is to give women an unfair advantage and that they should be able to get elected on their own merits.  In fact some argue that the women that are selected using this method are less worthy than potential male candidates that could have occupied that space.  What can we say in response to this argument?

Meritocracy is of course something to aim for.  In an ideal world, female candidates for office would be assessed alongside men fairly and equally on their merits.  That seems logical.  The question is not so much is this happening or not, but ‘what criteria are being used?’ Just what is merited? Much has been written elsewhere on the different styles that men and women display when leading and the benefits that both styles can have on a business environment. It’s recognised in the business world that having women take part in the running of your company with drive tangible benefits. This information needs to be passed on to and fully understood by the selection committees of our political parties and to the British media who routinely scorn female MP’s.

However, that aside (and it will be explored more fully later), I wonder what else is at play in producing the UK’s disastrous results in female political representation.  We may see a reflection of ourselves in India. The Economist featured a piece this week on Gendercide, the murder of girl babies due to a preference for boys. I’m not talking about abortion as murder, I mean the actual physical murder of female babies when they are born.  This happens widely in India, and in other countries, as well as there being a large rate of abortion of female foetuses. The Economist article explains that this is causing a problem in China, as the large numbers of men are now unable to find wives and crime levels are rising due to the unchallenged masculine energy.

In the UK we do not sanction the killing of any babies and lets be thankful for that but I wonder what vestiges of this preference for the male over the female we still hold in our psyches.  When we judge female leaders on ‘merit’ are we actually holding up the male version of leader as the ideal? When we assess a women for the job of politician are we actually assessing her against men that can do the job of being available 24/7, with support at home, with no direct caring responsibilities for the family, with an ability to compartmentalise thoughts and feelings?  Are we deeply preferencing men when we choose our leaders?

I think that the percentages of female leaders in business and in politics speak for themselves. The cost of equality is giving up the idea that men are more worthy than women. In India and China giving up this belief would save lives. In the UK it would open up our power structures to women and enable them to make the contribution they are capable of making, for the benfit of the country and our future generations.

(Photo by handmadebymaria, CC)