Election Coverage: Don’t vote based on gender

We are nearly at the end of a year with an all-male sabbatical officer team. Has it been the disaster that most predicted at the beginning of their “reign”? Well no.

The I <3 Consent drama fuelled by George Lawlor’s Tab article was arguably the judging point for how the SU would deal with feminist issues. Luke Pilot responded to the outrage openly on The Boar, saying “This initiative is nothing but morally good and is a part of a wider movement taking place across Universities and Students’ Unions.”

More recently Isaac Leigh and George Creasy took part in CMD’s Pink Week promotional material, raising money and awareness for Breast Cancer Now. Many of them have also supported  #periodpride in the last few weeks.

This year there are 10 self-defining women and 11 self-defining men running for positions in the SU – almost a 50/50 split. However there are only male candidates in the race for president and only one male candidate (Nat Panda) for Postgraduate Officer.

This year there are 10 self-defining women and 11 self-defining men running for positions in the SU – almost a 50/50 split

We can make the excuses that as President tends to be a position that has tended to be taken by previous sabbatical officers, there was already less of a chance. 5 out of 7 sabbatical officers have women running, with Sports 50% likely to be represented by a woman, Democracy and Development 25% chance, education 50%, Societies 66.6%, and Welfare 100% (Excluding the possibility of R.O.N.)

Out of 18 candidates in the 2015 election, only 5 were women (overall 28% female) so at least this year we are almost equally represented. Perhaps this is a reaction to last years all male team, with candidates encouraged instead of hindered by the all male result – thinking maybe it is time for change.

Out of 18 candidates in the 2015 election, only 5 were women

It is the voters who ultimately decide which candidates become sabbatical officers, whether male or female. However it is unfair to look only at gender when thinking about who would do the best job in their preferred role. Voting for a woman candidate purely because of their gender is not only insulting to their own merits, but to every suffragette and feminist who have fought for equal rights for women.

While positive discrimination is also an issue, it is important to think about making the race equal at the beginning by encouraging female candidates to be represented. The rest we can only leave up to student voters to pick the candidates they want to represent them. A woman officer elected on the base of her gender may not be as good as another candidate of another gender who wants to push more for feminist issues. You don’t have to be a woman to be a feminist – to oppose the patriarchy doesn’t necessarily mean establishing a matriarchy.

The rest we can only leave up to student voters to pick the candidates they want to represent them

I wonder looking at the signs on campus, with two female candidates opting for bright pink colour themes and another using an image of a well known cutesey childrens cartoon – will this years candidates use their gender as a tool to get votes, or will they demand to be counted based on manifestos, no matter what gender?