Prime-Minister is a woman...So?

Today, as usual, I turned on the "Euronews" during breakfast.
One of the major news was: Slovenia has a new Prime-minister. And she is a woman. In a few minutes, it was explained in greater details. As it appears, it is the first time in Slovenia that female human being was ellected for this post.

A few days ago, South Koreans ellected their president. Also woman.

Thus, my question: And what is supposed to be a "big deal"?
From what I know about those countries, they are democratic societies, where man and woman have the same ammount of rights (and responsibilities, I hope). Then why is there so much fuss about a woman becoming a head of state or a parlament. I can understand if somehow a non-resident got such post (impossible, but still), but gender is not that important of factor.
Besides: Europe tends to be quite democratic in gender politics. Isn't concentrating attention of viewers on something like this is... Sexist?

You thoughts, escapists?

P.S. Meanwhile in USA:
On the Capitol Hill american leaders have unveiled a statue of Rosa Parks. It is made of some brown material and stands between the statues of white american icons, made of white marble.

EDIT: about Rosa Parks. That was a joke.

Have Slovenia or South Korea ever had a female PM/President before? If not, there's your answer.

If they have, It's probably more of a general, "this is still pretty unusual," kind of thing.

VMK:
Today, as usual, I turned on the "Euronews" during breakfast.
One of the major news was: Slovenia has a new Prime-minister. And she is a woman. In a few minutes, it was explained in greater details. As it appears, it is the first time in Slovenia that female human being was ellected for this post.

It's not as simple as that yet, since if she fails to form a coalition within 15 days, we'll have to go for a snap election instead, that's how the vote of no confidence works here...our political scene is one big clusterfuck at the moment and it's getting exasperating...still, how much worse can it get, Vegosiux asked, rolling his eyes suggestively at Mistress Fate.

But, why is it a big deal. I suppose because it's the first time. It didn't seem like it was a big deal until the media grabbed the story, I watched nearly the entire marathon parliament session and I don't really recall that being brought up that much.

Well, the until-yesterday ruling party, SDS, tried to actually use the fact that she's a woman to discredit her, even went as far as tweeting, on their official party site that "Her term will be no longer than her skirt". She was wearing pants at the session yesterday, for the record. But that's a party of...putting it midly, really disagreeable people, that sadly still seems to be holding much ground in our national politics.

But yeah, as a native Slovenian? Our new PM-elect being female was not made a big deal until the media came in, tooting their trumpets.

You know, Patriarchy and stuff. Female World Leaders are still something rare these days. Who do we have nowadays? Korea, Slovenia, Argentina, Germany... I probably missed a few. Then again, you had female world leaders in the Philipines, Ireland, Sri Lanka... So it's not just Europe who's enlightened, maybe it's even the other way around. South America has a neat track-record of female leaders.

image
Here is a map of the world with female leaders.
Legend is in its description in the page, here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_or_appointed_female_heads_of_state

Maybe the news are about Slovenia's new prime minister because its former prime-minister was a corrupt piece of shit that caused thousands of protesters to march against him in the streets.

In a nation that has female leaders as much as men, it wouldn't be a big deal, now.

In a nation that is dominated by male leaders, and has never had a female head of state until now, it's indicative of a substantial change.

Despite having the same rights on paper, women often don't have the same access. So there's bound to be a "the first time" that a woman becomes leader of a particular country, which is a significant moment. But, yes, as time moves on more on more countries will follow and it should become less "special" then. When the second woman becomes leader of a particular country, it will already be less newsworthy. The more common it becomes from there, the less extraordinary it is, pretty damn simple. So lets hope it becomes really boring soon I guess.

Glasgow:

Maybe the news are about Slovenia's new prime minister because its former prime-minister was a corrupt piece of shit that caused thousands of protesters to march against him in the streets.

Oh, he's going to do his damnest to sabotage any new government, that I can tell you, he's been like this since we've gone independent. Not that the other side doesn't have its own share of scumbaggery, but Janša is just in a league of his own, and treats anyone who does not share his personal views as an enemy, and to paraphrase one of our MPs from yesterday's debate, he obviously thinks he's Lous XIV, with all that "L'etat, c'est moi" shtick he seems to have going.

Back in former Yugoslavia, he was quite the zealous communist, so zealous, in fact, her was basically kicke dout of thr Communist Party of Yugoslavia...for being too hardline. Today? Well he's a democrat, any any allegation against him is a conspiracy of the former communists against his person. Even the fact that he's in legal procedures in both Austria and Finland (and Slovenia of course) in regards to the Patria military equipment scandal from years ago (the time of his first government). But no, that wasn't him, damn communists made it all up.

The good news is that plenty of his own voters have turned against him. The bad news is, those who are blindly loyal to him will vote no matter what are still numerous. I will make it known right here, I never voted for that guy, or his party. He didn't even win the last election to begin with, took the PM position through a bunch of wheeling and dealing.

I wish I was making this up >.> I don't even dare to say "Good riddance", because I just know he's a snake and will find some way to keep slithering around causing trouble.

But, uh, now I'm derailing.

well if its a first its a "milestone".

and its a damn good "milestone" to get out the way because let's be honest ideally politicians should be elected on merit and once you've had the first X or Y people will put that to one side and consider any future ones hopefully even more-so on that merit.

for example there were many women who were excited about voting for mrs thatcher specifically because she was a woman (throughout margaret thatcher's term as prime minister, women continued to prefer the conservative party to labour in greater numbers than their male counterparts)...that's not likely to happen again...and i don't mean we won't elect another woman...or "another thatcher"...i mean there isn't likely there will be anywhere near as many women excited about voting for a woman just because she's a woman again.

and that's a good thing to move past.

because ideally "what's between someone's legs" and/or their colour or creed shouldn't really matter.

in a related point i thought John Kerrys mention in his speech when he took up his post as US Secretary of State about having "big heels to fill" and faux pondering if a man could run the US State Department was quite humorous (3 of the last 4 US Secretary of States being formidable women). it was "a big deal" when Albright was first but when not so when Rice or Clinton followed in her footsteps.

that's kind of the point...

I don't understand the last part of your OP, plenty of statues are made from bronze, and her statue isn't the only bronze one in the building. Were you being sarcastic, if so how does it relate to your post? I need answers!

Keep in mind journalists for the most part are just as lazy as internet posters. If you were covering the story would you rather phone in an article about how the PM is a woman, or spend hours researching her policies and how she fits in the grander scheme of history?

This isn't rocket surgery,OP, there's cultural significance to this. It shouldn't make a difference, but it does in those countries.

Comocat:
I don't understand the last part of your OP, plenty of statues are made from bronze, and her statue isn't the only bronze one in the building. Were you being sarcastic, if so how does it relate to your post? I need answers!

Keep in mind journalists for the most part are just as lazy as internet posters. If you were covering the story would you rather phone in an article about how the PM is a woman, or spend hours researching her policies and how she fits in the grander scheme of history?

A shame investigative journalism is a dying breed. I blame the internet.

As Seekit put it: it's a milestone. More often the "anyone could get into the top position of leadership" is a nice sentiment, but not really true due to trends favoring the group with the most power (in this case, men of the dominant ethnic group). That's why it's a big deal when someone who isn't part of that group, such as a woman or minority, get's into that top position.

VMK:
P.S. Meanwhile in USA:
On the Capitol Hill american leaders have unveiled a statue of Rosa Parks. It is made of some brown material and stands between the statues of white american icons, made of white marble.

Me thinks you've never been to that room (no direct link to 360 pic. Click on link, click on first box labeled US Capitol Building in "virtual tour" video box, click "Art and Architecture" tab, click "The Rotunda").

The Gentleman:
As Seekit put it: it's a milestone. More often the "anyone could get into the top position of leadership" is a nice sentiment, but not really true due to trends favoring the group with the most power (in this case, men of the dominant ethnic group). That's why it's a big deal when someone who isn't part of that group, such as a woman or minority, get's into that top position.

VMK:
P.S. Meanwhile in USA:
On the Capitol Hill american leaders have unveiled a statue of Rosa Parks. It is made of some brown material and stands between the statues of white american icons, made of white marble.

Me thinks you've never been to that room (no direct link to 360 pic. Click on link, click on first box labeled US Capitol Building in "virtual tour" video box, click "Art and Architecture" tab, click "The Rotunda").

I was joking about Rosa Parks.

OT: well..Yeah, but still I don't think that this should have so much attention. I just don't like how stress is put not on the fact that new PM, president, messiah, whatever, was elected, but this person is a woman. I see it like this: "Wow! I cannot believe that! They can do something besides making children and sandwiches."

How do I put this? The more emphasis you make on something, the more attention it gets (Captain Obvious to the rescue). And media does not pay attention to the fact that new PM was ellected, that she has some kind of platform, that she is conservatve/liberal, or something else. They care about the fact that this new PM was born a lady. That's it.

I just think that people should stop making emphasis on such things and soon they will become mundane.

Comocat:
I don't understand the last part of your OP, plenty of statues are made from bronze, and her statue isn't the only bronze one in the building. Were you being sarcastic, if so how does it relate to your post? I need answers!

Keep in mind journalists for the most part are just as lazy as internet posters. If you were covering the story would you rather phone in an article about how the PM is a woman, or spend hours researching her policies and how she fits in the grander scheme of history?

No, no, no, that was just a joke. It has nothing to do with the topic. I was just trying to be funny. Didn't work out, huh?

VMK:
I was joking about Rosa Parks.

The randomness of the comment in the thread along with the racial nature of the comment and the somewhat opaque nature of an internet posting (where we only have your word to go on), it's safer to assume someone is serious than joking.

Remember: Every idea, whether serious or not, has someone on the internet who seriously believes it.

OT: well..Yeah, but still I don't think that this should have so much attention. I just don't like how stress is put not on the fact that new PM, president, messiah, whatever, was elected, but this person is a woman. I see it like this: "Wow! I cannot believe that! They can do something besides making children and sandwiches."

How do I put this? The more emphasis you make on something, the more attention it gets (Captain Obvious to the rescue). And media does not pay attention to the fact that new PM was ellected, that she has some kind of platform, that she is conservatve/liberal, or something else. They care about the fact that this new PM was born a lady. That's it.

I just think that people should stop making emphasis on such things and soon they will become mundane.

Is the election ongoing? If not, then the platform itself is irrelevant until she begins the actual legislative processes. When she begins to push bills through the parliament, then the news will shift.

More practically, leaders are known for their achievements. For example: Margret Thatcher is known for evicerating the public sector in the UK and JFK (first Catholic US president), not counting his death, is best known for the Cuban Missile Crisis and the starting the Vietnam War. As they have just entering office, you're more likely to have the "first [x]" as their biggest achievement. Once they have more of a record, then the focus can shift.

The Gentleman:

Is the election ongoing? If not, then the platform itself is irrelevant until she begins the actual legislative processes. When she begins to push bills through the parliament, then the news will shift.

More practically, leaders are known for their achievements. For example: Margret Thatcher is known for evicerating the public sector in the UK and JFK (first Catholic US president), not counting his death, is best known for the Cuban Missile Crisis and the starting the Vietnam War. As they have just entering office, you're more likely to have the "first [x]" as their biggest achievement. Once they have more of a record, then the focus can shift.

I agree with what you are saying, but I think I didn't express myself clear enough.

I am not bothered with the fact that I don't know anything about her aside from her gender. I am bothered by the fact that INTERNATIONAL NEWS CHANNEL in the news about new PM of Slovenia not only forgot to mention something about her that is unknown to non-slovenians (party, education, etc.), but they also spend more time informing about her predecessor, who was a conservative engaged in real-estate scandal.

Same with SK's new president.

That's what bothing me mostly.

We live in a roughly 50 50 gender split world and for the most part even representatives in legislators aren't half women. You have to wonder why that is and people come to the conclusion that it isn't just chance it's a bit of sexism involved since many political parties choose who is going to be on the ballot. It's just a chance to show that the boys club of the past isn't the go to model anymore, it's historic.

VMK:

The Gentleman:

Is the election ongoing? If not, then the platform itself is irrelevant until she begins the actual legislative processes. When she begins to push bills through the parliament, then the news will shift.

More practically, leaders are known for their achievements. For example: Margret Thatcher is known for evicerating the public sector in the UK and JFK (first Catholic US president), not counting his death, is best known for the Cuban Missile Crisis and the starting the Vietnam War. As they have just entering office, you're more likely to have the "first [x]" as their biggest achievement. Once they have more of a record, then the focus can shift.

I agree with what you are saying, but I think I didn't express myself clear enough.

I am not bothered with the fact that I don't know anything about her aside from her gender. I am bothered by the fact that INTERNATIONAL NEWS CHANNEL in the news about new PM of Slovenia not only forgot to mention something about her that is unknown to non-slovenians (party, education, etc.), but they also spend more time informing about her predecessor, who was a conservative engaged in real-estate scandal.

Same with SK's new president.

That's what bothing me mostly.

As for international news: Outside of certain major countries (particularly the US, UK, Germany, France, and Russia), there is generally going to be little attention paid to the party politics regardless of who's in power. Scandals are more interesting from a journalistic perspective and, had there not been any scandal by her predecessor, he probably wouldn't have even been mentioned. For example, Italy's election is in the news primarily because of their impact on the Eurozone economic crisis (although it really should be focused more on Germany's need to shift from austerity to stimulus) and the fact that "Bunga Bunga" Burlusconi was not only able to run while facing corruption charges, but also gained a sizable share of the vote.

Don't forget the Australian Prime Minister. Although, even though she's held the position since 2010 or so, she's never actually won an election.

The general consensus here is that she's made things worse. And having met her at a rather unfortunate event, a soldier's funeral, I can say from personal experience that she's not the kind of person I could ever respect.

Women in charge as a whole though... I'm all for it.

Fatboy_41:
Don't forget the Australian Prime Minister. Although, even though she's held the position since 2010 or so, she's never actually won an election.

Firstly, who did win the most recent federal election then?

Secondly, who is the member for Lalor?

thaluikhain:

Fatboy_41:
Don't forget the Australian Prime Minister. Although, even though she's held the position since 2010 or so, she's never actually won an election.

Firstly, who did win the most recent federal election then?

Secondly, who is the member for Lalor?

1. No one. That's called a hung parliament. The fact that Labour retained power come down to deals made with the Greens to side with them and swing the number of seats. Deals that have not been delivered on, by the way.

2. My mistake. She's never won a federal election.

Fatboy_41:
1. No one. That's called a hung parliament. The fact that Labour retained power come down to deals made with the Greens to side with them and swing the number of seats. Deals that have not been delivered on, by the way.

So? They formed a coalition with the Greens (and some independents) to win. A coalition victory is no less valid than a win by one party.

Fatboy_41:

thaluikhain:

Fatboy_41:
Don't forget the Australian Prime Minister. Although, even though she's held the position since 2010 or so, she's never actually won an election.

Firstly, who did win the most recent federal election then?

Secondly, who is the member for Lalor?

1. No one. That's called a hung parliament. The fact that Labour retained power come down to deals made with the Greens to side with them and swing the number of seats. Deals that have not been delivered on, by the way.

2. My mistake. She's never won a federal election.

1. Then I guess that no Liberal party leader has won an election since 1922 then, seeing as the only way they formed majority was by making deals with the Nationals/precursors to the nationals. Just because they get called "the coalition" doesn't mean they're the only people who are allowed to do it.

2. Furthermore, no individual prime minister has ever won a federal election. You do not vote for Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott, you vote for the party member who represents your electorate, and that's all. The prime minister is chosen by the party/coalition that has the majority of seats in the lower house.

CAMDAWG:

Fatboy_41:

thaluikhain:

Firstly, who did win the most recent federal election then?

Secondly, who is the member for Lalor?

1. No one. That's called a hung parliament. The fact that Labour retained power come down to deals made with the Greens to side with them and swing the number of seats. Deals that have not been delivered on, by the way.

2. My mistake. She's never won a federal election.

1. Then I guess that no Liberal party leader has won an election since 1922 then, seeing as the only way they formed majority was by making deals with the Nationals/precursors to the nationals. Just because they get called "the coalition" doesn't mean they're the only people who are allowed to do it.

2. Furthermore, no individual prime minister has ever won a federal election. You do not vote for Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott, you vote for the party member who represents your electorate, and that's all. The prime minister is chosen by the party/coalition that has the majority of seats in the lower house.

Forming a coalition after failing to win the election on your own is a little different to having the alliance with another party beforehand, when everyone knows it.

As for the "you vote for the party" point,while technically correct, it's pretty hard to deny that a very sizeable number of people vote for the party based on who the leader is at the time. You are 100%, iron clad correct about one thing though... I would not vot for Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott.

Fatboy_41:

Forming a coalition after failing to win the election on your own is a little different to having the alliance with another party beforehand, when everyone knows it.

As for the "you vote for the party" point,while technically correct, it's pretty hard to deny that a very sizeable number of people vote for the party based on who the leader is at the time. You are 100%, iron clad correct about one thing though... I would not vot for Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott.

Not substantially different. The process is the same for the Coalition. After the election, they have to convince the GG that they can together form a stable majority government. The deal is just worked out ahead of schedule. It's just that we've got a system dominated by the ALP and the Libs, with a little bit of nationals on the side, that we don't have to deal with this sort of thing very often. And regardless of how different the situation is, it does not make the Labor/green/independent victory any more or less legitimate than any Lib/Nat/LNP victory has been or would be. Statements to the contrary are complete bullshit.

And yes, a lot of people think they vote for the leader. And that is a problem. People should be aware of how their own political system works. People were going around after Julia Gillard became PM saying how it was in some way illegal. That's a problem.

CAMDAWG:

And yes, a lot of people think they vote for the leader. And that is a problem. People should be aware of how their own political system works. People were going around after Julia Gillard became PM saying how it was in some way illegal. That's a problem.

Yea, that was a little depressing to see how many people actually thought that it was illegal for her to do what she did. Deceptive and deceitful in some people's eyes, maybe. But not illegal. I would have been all for any way to get her out of office years ago.

On a more positive note, from everything I've heard from some mate across the river, Helen Clark did an incredible job as the PM in New Zealand.

Female leaders are relatively new. While there were a few Queens and Empresses in the past, the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of political leaders on every level were Men. Not because Women weren't good at leading - it was because if a Woman tried to become leader in the past, Men had certain ways of... er... dissuading.... her of pursuing such a career.

Women leaders are very, very recent. It's a good thing as well, that we are seeing more and more female leaders.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked