Voting for a woman just because she is a woman makes as much sense as voting for a man because he is a man. It is usually proposed with a straight face by the sisterhood, as if it were self-evident that women are a homogeneous group with identical aims and an innate solidarity which would automatically make the world a better place if only more of them were in power, writes Breda O'Brien
To which one can only respond - cow manure.
When the sisterhood urge us to vote for women, they really want us to vote for sisters. They want to elect women who believe that women are oppressed because of their gender, who are pro-choice and pro-divorce, who believe that domestic violence is almost exclusively a women's issue, who are convinced that young men are in dire need of re-education to make them more like young women.
They want women who believe that the mark of adult personhood is economic independence. So all women must have access to State subsidised childcare so that they can go out to work. Women who want to stay at home have to be given token support because of the exaltation of the value of choice, but that is the only reason.
Here's an example of what I mean. There is someone running for election who has always worked outside the home in a highly competitive environment despite being a mother. She has worked abroad, has been the primary wage-earner in her family for many years, and has extraordinary media and canvassing skills. She also has a very good chance of being elected. It would be fair to assume that the sisterhood would be enthusiastically supporting her. Except that her name is Dana Rosemary Scallon. Be careful what you wish for, sisters. You may get it.
There are two main reasons why there are so few women in politics, one politically correct but none the less true, the other heresy. Let's begin with the heresy. There are fewer women than men in politics because there are a heck of a lot of women who are bored senseless by politics.
In any workplace where men and women work together, other than in a media office or in a lobby group, the men will be the ones discussing politics. Women will be discussing the minutiae of life, such as how people are getting on with each other, or childminding problems or even washing powders.
This fact is seized upon by male chauvinists as proof that women are essentially trivial human beings without the ability to deal with weighty issues. To which one can only respond - bull manure. Men like politics for the same reason they like sport, because it's a game. They love the competition, the point- scoring, the jockeying for power and even the back-stabbing. Women dislike it for the same reasons.
Politics is a boys' game, and the women who are successful in it are the ones who are prepared to play by the boys' rules. There are a lot of heroic women in politics. They are called TDs' wives. They keep the show on the road in the family and in the constituency clinic. They make enormous sacrifices for which there are no public thanks whatever.
Since most women do not have wives or the equivalent, those who make a success of it are going to have to be exceptionally determined. Which brings us to the politically correct reason why so few women enter politics.
If you want to have a family life, and you live outside Dublin, do not become a TD. Even if you live in or close to Dublin you will be working extraordinary hours and expected to be available to constituents at any time they need you. Many women look at that life and quite rightly decide it is not for them.
Which leads us to an interesting paradox. Women who are willing to play by the boys' rules are much more likely to get elected and much more likely to please the sisters.
This is particularly true of women elected on a party ticket. But many people are cheesed off with the political parties, including many women, and as a result independents are likely to do well.
There are only three women likely to be elected as independents. They are Mildred Fox, Marian Harkin and Dana Rosemary Scallon, and while they have many differences, the one thing they have in common is that they are all anti-abortion, which is anathema to the sisters.
Not that I think any of them will be elected on a pro-life ticket alone. Dana certainly won't be. No, if she gets in, she will do so by being an astute politician running on an anti-politician ticket, and because she has charisma to burn. The photo of the campaign for me was the one of her wagging her finger at Bertie, while Margaret Cox's mouth twisted in cynical disbelief at her nemesis's cheek.
Dana and Bertie have a lot in common, both in their people skills and ability to surmount situations which would kill off anybody else.
Dana managed to let down and deeply wound a large part of her natural constituency, the anti-abortion activists, when she destroyed the referendum they had worked on for 10 years. Yet she probably will still get elected. The way in which she has aligned herself with residents' groups in Galway is classic Dana, and very like the way in which she charmed the councillors into giving her an opportunity to run for President.
Mildred Fox is a hereditary politician who has grown into the role very nicely, both by assiduous work on behalf of her constituents and by having values for which she is willing to go out on a limb. Yet she would not be a favourite among the sisters, either. Marian Harkin would probably be the most acceptable to them, yet she will be elected not because she is a woman but because she is a dogged campaigner for the west.
Despite the sisters' exhortations, women and men will continue to vote for the person they feel best represents them. Voting for women because of their competence and their values makes sense. Voting for them because they are women is patronising nonsense.