Audrey McLaughlin, Canada

It is absolutely necessary that men are part of the goal of increasing the number of elected women at all levels. In my party, we started by implementing a quota system for all levels of the party..constituency associations, the executive of the party , election planning committees. We then implemented a quota system for women candidates in the election, a difficult process in the majority system.

None of this would have happened without the organization by women and the inclusion of those men who supported the goal. While having women's groups within parties is essential in my view, I believe that we must look to ways to include men in our conferences and meetings, too often we are simply speaking to the converted rather than to those we wish to convince.

We also have to move from the "we" "they" mentality which can characterize the movement for gender equality , there can only be "we". In addition, while we have not been able to fully reach our goals, this is best if accompanied by support from NGOs and from government legislation . Gender equality is a cultural change which , as we all know, is a very slow process.

The main reasons for asking this provocative question are, firstly, that except for Rwanda, women do not have the majority in any parliament in the world. So alliances are necessary to build a majority behind any equality proposal. Secondly, even if equality policies are being placed on the political agenda first and foremost by female politicians, groups of male politicians have, ever since women won the suffrage, participated in the work to promote women in politics. Such partnerships have always been important. So what are the experiences in building partnerships with men on equality policy issues?

Today, almost 50 countries have adopted electoral gender quotas, and in about 50 additional countries one or more of the political parties represented in parliament have made gender quotas regulations for their own leadership and party lists for election, see www.quotaproject.org . What were the motives and which kind of alliances were built that allowed for the passing of laws and regulations to promote women’s political representation in male-dominated parliaments and political parties? It would be good to share the experiences of these processes globally here on iKNOWPolitics.

Formal or informal cross-party alliances among women politicians have historically been a strong tool for promoting equality policy. Do male politicians participate in such networks – and should they? Or is partnership with male politicians usually formed only within the political parties.

A Feminist dilemma:
Male involvement in equality policy is important also because male politicians do seem to listen more to other men than to women advocating gender equality. To give an example: The former Swedish Equality Ombudsman was a male. He was very visible and influential, not only because he was good, but also – I would argue – because he was a man. However, this promotion of men in equality politics has always represented a dilemma for feminists who want to promote women to leadership positions and see to it that women are given authority even in a male dominated society. What’s the best strategy?

And which are the obstacles?
Research from different countries shows that while many women politicians report of discriminatory experiences in politics, and believe it is more difficult to be a woman than a man in politics, the vast majority of male politicians doesn’t see any problem here. Surveys show that most male politicians do not believe that there is any discrimination of women in politics. Ignorance and gender blindness rather than anti-feminism may lie behind this lack of understanding of how it is to be a woman politician in a male constructed and male dominated environment. How do women politicians raise these delicate questions of how the political workplace functions for women?

Drude Dahlerup
Political Science Professor at Stockholm and iKNOW Politics Expert

After years of working to strengthen the medical, psychosocial and legal response to sexual violence in Kenya, it was clear that, the biggest hurdle that remained were the weak laws. There were no minimum sentences and often jail terms were left to the discretion of judicial officers usually favoring lenient sentences. Justice for survivors of violence was not guaranteed. In the courtroom the burden of proof was on survivors – their sexual history could be brought up at will by the defense and for vulnerable witnesses, in camera sessions were not guaranteed. A new law was required and a champion to carry it to parliament.

In 2006, the interests of women’s rights activists working on legal reform related to sexual violence, found a natural ally in Hon Njoki Ndungu a nominated female MP in Kenya. Hon. Ndungu a lawyer by profession and with a background in women’s rights activism was concerned about the rising cases of sexual violence and the lack of justice for survivors. She instigated a private members bill – the Sexual Offences Bill, 2006.

By the time the Bill came to parliament, it had caused such an uproar among the male MPs, who were keen to shoot it down, claiming that it was too punitive against men. It was also facing falling prey to the bipartisanship that had befallen the Kenyan parliament by this time. The protests were mounting and it was seeming that the Bill would never pass.

Hon. Ndungu and members of the Kenya Women’s Parliamentary Caucus continued discussions inside the house, identifying opposition and meeting with these members directly. Hon. Ndungu also met with the police, religious leaders, Attorney General all in the lead up to the debate in the House.

They also began to give careful thought to the strategy they would use to present the Bill for debate on the House floor. On the day, the bill was presented, it was seconded by Hon. Mutula Kilonzo, who in his remarks cited the detrimental effects of sexual violence, to a hushed audience. He was followed by another male MP who also gave facts and figures collated mainly by women’s civil society groups.

Although there was opposition during the debates, eventually the Bill passed. We can’t say for sure that this one method was the sole reason it passed, there are countless others including the advocacy by civil society groups over the years. However, we do know that the use of male MPs coming out in such clear support of the legislation, did serve as a useful reminder to those opposed, that the issue was not just a women’s issue, rather one about security, and this definitely did not harm the case for enacting it.

On gaining support from male colleagues for legislation, it is imperative that women are able to talk about their priority issues in terms that appeal to both men and women. If women talk about women's issues as 'women's issues' they will immediately lose the attention of some colleagues - including some women. For example, women may be able to galvanize support for health issues that impact women in particular, by highlighting the impact that the health issues could have on the daughters, mothers, wives etc. of their male colleagues. This is precisely what women members of the US congress did in order to achieve funding for breast cancer. Every issue can be characterized in a way that conveys its impact on all people - not just women. In any advocacy, one needs to focus on what appeals to the interests of the others that need to become supporters or advocates and many women's movements would benefit from altering their message - not their issues - to appeal to a broader base of men in a systematic way.