Behind in my male (heh, heh, heh), I pause in catching up to note that *I* thought - given the limitations *and* opportunities of the *genre* - Jane Fonda is RIGHT ON!
Patriarchy and the public power of men is quite real and the fact of some women in politics who behave like men doesn't alter the basic point. One has to be careful not to be essentialist about these things. It's not that there is some "male essence" from which these bad behaviors follow; but there are tendencies and proclivities and opportunities. Just because we don't live in a society with the prominent horror of female infanticide doesn't mean that sons are not more likely than daughters to inherit the status and privileges of the fathers (and to be seen to merit these). (Does GW Bush have any sisters? How come I don't know? Why not?) Fonda speechifies in the genre of feminist politics, which is one powerful, effective, and relevant way to make the point. But one could work toward similar politically charged conclusions contrasting other apparent binaries: "capital"/labour, coloniser/colonised, wealthy/poor, advanced/backward, civilised/savage, Captains of Industry/the Elders, adults/children, bullies/bullied, ... Let me just develop the last point. If you wanted to create a STRUCTURE of political decision-making that strongly favoured the bully over the concensus-builder, you would have a hard time creating something more effective than the parliamentary system, especially as it is practised in Canada. Consider: ** the person who wins the leadership of the party (only party members voting) will be the Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition (or none of these) as a result of a general election in which each party sets out a field of candidates, one per electoral district. ** the Prime Minister as leader of the party is the boss of the government caucus and in charge of all appointments (to cabinet, secretaryships, etc.) from the pool of elected members. ** the PM as PM is Chief Executive, responsible for *all* aspects of government, most importantly what legislation to bring to the House and when to bring it. ** In the House, "party discipline" is expected and members must vote the party line (so as to pass the bills and maintain the government). If the goverment LOSES a vote in parliament, the government is defeated and the PM must resign as PM and an election is called. In Canada this applies to virtually EVERY vote unless explicitly identified as "open". ** in Cabinet, PM is Chair; solidarity and secrecy are enforced. Whatever goes on in the meeting, all ministers will present a common front, fully supporting the position of "the government". The contents of debate in cabinet are privileged. ** Needless to say, anyone violating these rules and traditions stands likely to lose whatever post or perk she or he has, and so. ** It has been noticed, that this amounts to a dictatorship of the PM and his/her party. Every 4 or 5 years, the PM decides to stand aside and ask the monarch to call a general election which will be held 6 weeks - YES that's 6 WEEKS - after it is called. As a result of this election, the absolute rule of the PM is reconstituted. This sketch is off the top of my head but is the gist of it. The structure and tradition of this system concentrates power magnificently in ONE PERSON. Now let me define "bully" as "a person whose chief aim in life is to exert *power over others*; all other objects of desire serve this highest end; the *telos* of the bully is power." There are probably very few pure bullies; but the character type certainly exists. Such people are importantly different from many (most) of us. But it is THEY, and not most of us, who are strongly *attracted to* positions of power. And so it is THEY who will be found in inordinate numbers among the especially ambitious in the upper reaches of politics (and other institutions of significant public power - business, the law, etc.). I think it is also true that decidedly more males are bullies than females. Males don't have a monopoly, but surely it is a "masculine" trait (which means that it will, for oratorical purposes, sometimes be spoken of as a nasty consequence of "testosterone poisoning". (I think Arthur sent around one day a piece about Prof Robert Hare, a UBC psychologist, who argues that these people are, literally, psychopaths. Perhaps so, but my point doesn't turn on Hare being right; it just turns on the presence of bullies among us, and the prevalence of structures of power that SERVE THEIR INTERESTS*.) I have been claiming that among those top-down, take-it-or-leave-it, like-it-or-lump-it structures of power is the parliamentary system. Bullies will be especially well-served in such a system; it attracts them and we will find them dominant there, mostly among the boyz. (Speaking of boys who will be boys, I could insert a sidebar here about Question Period as practised in BC and Ottawa, but I'll leave that, often embarassing spectacle, to more able authors.) Ed Weick's observation is here pertinent. He says, >>> I can't think of any women I've encountered in positions of power in politics, >>> business or the bureaucracy who operate differently from the way men operate. <<< Of course, I think Ed would agree that the people we encounter in these positions of power are 4 out of 5 times men. There are many reasons for this, but I am sure that one very important reason is that most women have neither the desire, the inclination, or the stomach to behave like bullies. Those that do - indeed, seem rather to relish it, tend to do well... Enter Margaret Thatcher. Ed might also want to revise his observation. Does he include the last two Canadian NDP Leaders in his survey (Audrey McLaughlin, Alexa McDonough)? You could say, "but they didn't have any power" ... which is to concede the point. How about the northern people you've worked with, Ed? From where I sit I see few (if any) bullies among the native people. I do see men and women who operate more like each other and less like the typical successful parliamentarian. I can bring these thoughts to conclusion in a coherent way by observing that the political structure & traditions of *municipal councils* are far less hospitable to bullies and, with a little effort, can even be made concensus-building and people-friendly. When Jane Fonda says ---> "Because we can't just talk about women being at the table - it's too late for that - we have to think in terms of the shape of the table. Is it hierarchical or circular (metaphorically speaking)? We have to think about the quality of the men who are with us at the table, the culture that is hovering over the table that governs how things are decided and in whose interests. This is not just about glass ceilings or politics as usual." I hear her saying "DOWN WITH BULLIES and the Patriarchal Structures that support them!" and I say "Hear! Hear! Say it Again & Again!" Thanks, Karen, for sending JF's piece around. best wishes & Happy Winter to all, Stephen Straker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vancouver, B.C. [Outgoing mail scanned by Norton AntiVirus] _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
