Labour in favour of discrimination

That is to say, Labour are demanding that candidates for political office be chosen not merely on the basis of merit, but also on the basis of their sex. Parties that do not ensure that at least 20% of their candidates are women are to lose their state funding, if Mr Gilmore has his way; after seven years the quota is to rise to 33%, after another seven years to 40%.

We are all familiar with angry newspaper articles decrying the fact that women are less represented in politics than men. But such pieces seldom state explicitly why this is so. The vague impression is given that it must be down to an attempt on the part of men - whether party members, or voters, or both - to exclude women from the political arena. But does anyone seriously believe this? Do we really think that male voters sit there saying to themselves, consciously or unconsciously, "I won't be voting for her - she's a woman!"? If anything, being female - especially an attractive female - might be something of an advantage for a politician. I specifically remember voting for a particular female candidate at a College election for no other reason than that she was better looking than her rivals. (I think the post was Welfare Officer. She didn't make it, alas.)

I can think of two possible explanations for "female underepresentation" in politics, and neither has to do with the attitudes of men, but of women themselves.

First, there is the plain fact that a great many women simply are not interested in politics. Many are, of course, and the Christian Solidarity Party is fortunate to have some very committed women in its ranks. But the fact remains that women are often impatient with the abstract theorizing and waffle that politics involves. I think it is telling that the gender balance, if we must use that term, is far more even in "issue politics" than in party politics. Women have no problem coming out in large numbers in favour of the right to life or against the slaughter in Gaza, but party politics, with its endless backslapping, compromises and U-turns, holds far less attraction for them.

Feminists will hold that this lack of interest in party politics in women is culturally conditioned; women grow up in a world where they are told that "women aren't supposed to be interested in politics" and therefore they convince themselves that they are not. But as with many other aspects of gender theory, the absurdity of this can soon be seen in the cold light of day. I know women from highly conservative backgrounds who are interested in politics, and I likewise know women from extremely liberal, enlightened backgrounds whose eyes glaze over whenever the P-word is mentioned.

The other reason is the reason comparitively few women rise to the top of the corporate world; because their nurturing instincts often lead them to interrupt their careers in order to have and raise children. And it seems to me that this is a quality we should encourage, rather than racing to get rid of it like the Labour Party.

I can think of a few female readers, conservative as well as liberal, who might find what I have written here insulting and pompous. I would like to assure them that I really have no problem with women in politics. I would support a superior female candidate over an inferior male one without the slightest, the slightest hesitation. But I think that the reasons for women's lower representation in party politics are the ones I have given here, and not any nefarious sexist conspiracy on the part of party establishments or voters.