I wanted to add to some of these suggestions with an anecdote.
A female friend of mine who is currently considering getting into politics went to an event recently about getting women into politics. It was an initiative run by some progressive / left-wing group, I can’t remember precisely which, but broadly speaking it was an information session for women thinking of getting into politics. It was a panel format affair where women who are already in politics spoke about their experience. Ellen Sandell, the Greens member for Melbourne in the Victorian Parliament, was one of the speakers.
One of the points that came up was that women and men, generally speaking, as a result of the different ways in which they are socialised to behave, tend to require different impetuses or incentives in order to put themselves forward for office.
Women tend not to put themselves forward. Instead, they prefer to be approached. I guess the psychology here is something about having confidence in yourself. Generalising rather massively - as sometimes happens in discussions of gender - I suppose this might be a result of women’s tendency to doubt themselves and their competence far more than men do (I cannot stress enough, I am speaking in generalities here - obviously there are many confident women etc. - but I am speaking about a trend.) Gender and self-doubt are intimately related.
Ellen Sandell told the group, for example, that she decided to run for the Greens after being approached to run. And a number of the women there confirmed that a successful strategy for getting more women to run is to make a point of approaching women and asking them.
This anecdote seemed pertinent for the question of why women didn’t put themselves forward to be candidates. Perhaps one possible solution - and this is a multi-dimensional phenomenon, so this isn’t the proverbial silver bullet - might be to make a point of approaching and encouraging women pirates (or LGBTI+ pirates, or other sorts of pirates unrepresented at present) by letting them know that they would be great in office.
Thanks iamtheblob, i suspected that could be part of it.
I sincerely regret not spending some time in the lead up to preselection being proactive trying to inspire, suggest and ask some of our female members to consider nominating, but i guess the election popping up in the midst of while we were emabrking on the memberdb crowdfunding and so on, it just kind of became a frantic job doing the other bits and peices around preselection and nominations.
If i’d known we’d get no female nominees then it certainly would have been something id have perhaps dropped other things to do and try to ensure that we did just that… But having had female candidates for both our previous recent by-election campaigns and on senate tickets previously, i guess partly i just assumed we’d have some raise their hands this time around. But alas no.
Increasing member, candidate and volunteer diversity, and ensuring we foster an environment and culture within the party that is conducive to enabling and encouraging participation from everyone, i feel, will need to be a definite priroity from here on out.
I understand your frustration with members but perhaps a “Well, why not come along to some meetings and let’s have a talk” is a tad more conducive to inclusion than “There are so many things wrong with your comments that I don’t know where to begin. Let’s try the start…”
There’s a undercurrent of aggression, and blame (even if deserved) from core members on this thread that is certainly not encouraging.
With respect, you made a claim about the Pirate Party that was erroneous. I felt it my duty to correct it, and to challenge the maker of the statement. You are not a member of the Pirate Party, and so I will not treat you any different to a member of the public who makes false claims about the Party.
We give plenty of invitations to attend meetings and participate in various happenings. Members get these invitations. You are not a member, as you have reminded us at least twice now, so naturally you are not a person I wish to be inclusive towards.
I think it would be properly characterised as an undercurrent of resentment towards individuals who have joined, done nothing as a member, and then complained about the direction of the party and left. If people felt so strongly, where were they when the handful of members who work hard were toiling away?
You complain about people not wanting to help yet are belligerent, unwelcoming, and not even listening preferring to just go on the defence.
I spent last election at a booth handing out how to vote cards. I’ve even bought an A frame for this year’s signs because we, sorry, you didn’t have any. Sure, it’s not joining in on IRC but I thought it was something. But I’ll await your snide aggressive dismissal.
I feel I have every right to be defensive when people unjustifiably criticise policies that I and others have spent years of our lives developing. I have listened to everything you have said, and I apologise if my responses come across as belligerent. I welcome constructive criticism, but so far there hasn’t been any in my opinion — that’s not belligerence, that’s just my opinion.
I am yet to see any clarity as to (a) what we’re doing wrong, and (b) how we can fix it. And before that becomes an invitation to criticise my attitude again — I wrote a very nice comment on this thread earlier about getting involved and not feeling like your contributions don’t matter, and what steps people can take to move the party in the direction they want it to go.
I am pleased to learn that you have in fact done something. This is promising.
You are unironically conflating the biggest global seed company controlling most of the international seed market coming with the baggage of all its neo-colonial subtexts and it’s patented WHO ‘probable carcinogen’ classified herbicide, with the range of bio-technologies being researched in universities.
Perhaps you are thinking that discussions that voice oppositions to things like patents on seeds are anti-science. I would disagree. Not thinking critically about our technologies is anti-science.
I realise you are only one voice of many. And I also realise I’ve extrapolated out from previous members’ conversations (possibly) erroneously to the party’s position. But perhaps maybe not depending on the current member base.
However, shouldn’t this thread be about how to both attract more members and welcome back those who have left, and keep current members feeling unsure?
Mozart has asked for feedback so I’ll contact him directly.
Mozart, I deeply respect everything you say and your leadership in the party. However, I feel you’ve erred here.
so naturally you are not a person I wish to be inclusive towards
I don’t think that’s helpful. In the end if we’re going to be a party representing our regions and states, we have to represent all the voices in that state, and weigh up our members’ desires against everyone else, and respectfully explain why we believe what we believe. I feel like our whole “You are a Pirate” theme goes along these lines: We expect that all people are notionally pirates, and even expect them to steal our ideas.
In addition, Michael B is not just “not a member”, he’s a member who resigned. If we are to grow, then our core membership (which I believe we’re still accruing) needs to be solid. This is why he’s in this discussion, and we should spend the time to explain the policy, even though the words have been written down and people will keep asking repeatedly. The important thing is, if Michael understands the policy, he can explain it to others (and hopefully re-join), which means long-term it’s less effort for you.
To Michael: I hope you can understand where the frustration comes from. Mozart works his arse off and would kill for some help. He (and everyone else who is part of a committee or working group) probably hear “I would like to help but…” a lot. To add fuel to the fire, you’ve taken a policy (which Mozart probably had at least a hand in writing) and called it anti-science.
It’s brought some issues to light, so it appears to have served an effective purpose, even if that meant it’s brought up and unfortunately caused some negatives to happen, so in a way, yes.
This is good to hear, and exactly what we like to see happen, so I’m happy you and @Mozart are taking this approach, because it’s what we want and need.
=====
NOTE: The below paragraph is my assessment of things based on observation, and is meant to be seen as purely objective only and with sincerity. Not taking pot-shots at anyone.
Some current members such as @Mozart have worked on a lot of things in the party, such as press release publications, party management and policy development, and although I’m not saying he’s of a higher status than anyone else in the party, the perceived hostility has come about because it would’ve felt to people such as him like a slap in the face, and no one responds to that well at all. It’s like having worked on a major project at work, only for management to respond only to errors and not commend/reward the hard/smart work that had been done. It makes you feel like you wasted effort because you’re not being acknowledged, and makes you question your worth in the eyes of others
=====
In any case, it looks like this thread has run a good course. In spite of the drama and some unfortunate and preventable conclusions, it has helped bring to the surface some core issues that need to be addressed (no good thing that has massive rapid growth can be without fault), some of which are already being spear-headed in other threads. Let’s learn from this and work to improve our interrelationships.
This might be considered a wacky idea, and probably not even an issue if there are insufficient non-males to apply it to, but should there be a contest for a position, is there a form of vote weighting that would address that imbalance and would such a policy position help to demonstrate a positive attitude to inclusion? I would also go so far as to suggest that deputy/support positions be created to alleviate work load for non-males to achieve a symbolic at least shift in public representation. And whilst Control of the Body does address issues for formal rights for Women in respect of abortion, should there be a policy for positive inclusion for non-males? A women’s/non-male caucus?
To the best of my knowledge, every woman who has ever run for or applied for a position in PPAU has been elected or appointed as requested. I think that demonstrates a willingness for inclusion. I think the problem is more in the area of encouraging more women to join/participate/run for positions than it is to do with getting them appointed.
As for 'vote weighting" and alleviating work load, I view these things as doing a disservice to the women we would like to include. It’s also an anti-democratic stance, in that elected representatives end up in a position where both they and the members are uncertain of whether they were elected on merit. This would be further exacerbated by your other proposal to “alleviate work” for elected women, as if they are somehow incapable of operating on an equal footing with the men.
So whilst I agree with the need for greater inclusion and diversity, I don’t like your proposed solution at all.
What ideas do you have that would attract greater diversity in joining/participation/running for positions?
I’m thinking that some form of greater outreach would be good.
I have heard suggestions that women are more inclined to wait for someone to suggest or invite them to run for positions. I’m not sure how true this is.
At the end of the day any structural change to the system to make it easier for women to get elected is a serious flaw in the system. Its my belief that making changes to make it easier for women than it is for men is:
Inherently wrong, its not promoting equality, its saying that because of particular events that didn’t happen during your gestation period you should be entitled to more. I hate the term, but it is ‘reverse sexism’
Breeds more misogynistic attitudes. Men feel like the system is rigged against them and they start to feel (perhaps rightly so) that women are too entitled.
Is undemocratic.
If you say, create a spot specifically for women (Say we made it so that at least one councillor had to be a woman), but have failed to address the issue of female participation then its entirely likely that you might only have one female apply to the council. This means the spot is automatically theirs even if they are the worst possible candidate.