Off the back of International Women’s Day (which should be
every day am I right?), I’ve
been thinking a lot about gender equality and how
it can actually be achieved. Gender equality in the workplace is something
that’s been talked about for at least 15 years now, but not much progress has
been made in the UK or US.
‘Controversial’ quotas for women in senior roles have been
debated for as long as I can remember. Everyone knows we need more female
representation in the House of Commons, and it’s common knowledge that despite
the Equal Pay Act of 1970, women still earn significantly less than men. All of
these facts are scandals in and of themselves. But what is worse is that these
and other factors are acting as barriers to true gender equality. As a feminist,
calls for a 50:50 House of Commons, the use of All Women Shortlists (AWS), and
quotas for women in senior business roles are a logical and achievable step
towards achieving equality. You might be surprised to know that the country
with the highest proportion of women in Parliament is Rwada, yes Rwanda. If
they can do it, we have no excuse.
So why is the UK holding back? Let’s get in the know about
the pros and cons of some forms of affirmative action.
There are already mild forms of affirmative action in the
west which encourage more women into positions of power, and out of our comfort
zones to places men usually have no problems going to. In the US, Emily’s List is a cross party initiative
which trains and puts forward female candidates in elections where
traditionally men have won. They have had lots of success stories, with Massachusetts
senator Elizabeth Warren benefitting from their aid. In Canada, Invite Her to Run is an initiative of
Trudeau’s Liberal Party which allows you to nominate women in your community
who is a great leader but who would never think to put herself forward for
political office.
Both of these initiatives speak to the problem us ladies
have of believing in ourselves. According to the Liberal Party’s initiative,
research shows a woman is 50% less likely than a man to consider herself a
potential candidate for elected office. Men have no problem in saying, “I’m
awesome, people should vote for me”. We have to hear it from somebody else. I
think the UK would benefit from a scheme like this. Women need to be told that
our skills our transferrable to politics and that it isn’t just about
showboating and saying, “I’m awesome!” (Although that helps!).
But what about more solid forms of affirmative action? Let’s
have a look at the evidence
·
Many have claimed that all women shortlists
(AWS) reduce the quality of candidates by excluding men, but actually the evidence
shows otherwise. Rather than facilitating the entry of unqualified women, much
like the American and Canadian initiatives AWS reduce the barriers for well-prepared
women. Not only have they proved to produce diligent and active MP’s, they have
shown to have positive or neutral effects on party vote shares.
·
Believe it or not, Swedish data even shows some
evidence that AWS improve the quality of male candidates too. Recent British
examples have seen an improvement in ethnic diversity resulting from AWS.
Nugent
and Krook (2015), “All- Women Shortlists: Myths and Realities”, Parliamentary
Affairs 1-21
Anyone spotted a downside yet? No, me neither.
·
In the case of quotas, there are mixed
findings. Evidence collected from randomised gender quotas in Indian political
Institutions showed to increase female leadership, as well as reduce gender
discrimination. However gender quotas on corporate boards showed evidence that
corporations found ways to circumvent the quotas which ultimately undermined
the impact of quotas.
·
More recently, LSE called for gender quotas to
be mandatory in professions such as politics, law and communications to bring
more women to positions of power. The same study claimed the current state of
gender relations “creates dilemmas of work-life balance which are detrimental
to women’s quality of life, and to women’s life chances, across social spheres”,
and they argue that only radical measures like quotas will spur change.
·
Just last year Catalyst found years of global evidence
suggests corporate gender quotas are in fact working where they are used.
Countries which introduced quotas came top of the 20 countries with the highest
% of female representation in the boardroom. Norway was the first country to
introduce mandatory quotas, and it came top of the list, with 35.5% female
representation in OMX listed companies.
·
However, here in the quotaless UK, we haven’t even
managed to reach our target of 25% female boardroom representation. Instead we
lie in 6th place, with 22.8%. This is more than Germany though, who’s
ratio last year was 18.5%, and who this year are introducing a quota for 30%.
Does this index then, suggest that quotas are simply necessary if we have any hope of
reaching targets for equal gender representation in corporations? I think
quotas are something we have to do if we really are serious about equality. And
I would question anyone who thinks such measures aren’t necessary to overcome
the inexcusable over representation of men in the most influential positions in
society. Ladies, we need to get in the room where it happens!
