The feminine touch

The 2006 Canadian Election Study, conducted by the Institute for Social Research at York University, revealed some intriguing differences between men's and women's values.

Outside of Quebec, only 32 per cent of women opposed same-sex marriage while 42 per cent of men did. Men revealed a more vindictive nature with 47 per cent supporting capital punishment compared to only 35 per cent of women. Perhaps reflecting the Bush Administration's belligerent foreign policy, or the U.S.'s lack of Medicare, significantly fewer women than men wanted closer ties to the United States. One woman in two considered health care her most important issue while men were more concerned about corruption. As we might expect, the Conservative Party was more appealing to men, the NDP to women. The Liberals appealed equally to both sexes.

The pattern is clear. Women are drawn toward more socially tolerant, less violent, more caring policies. We might reasonably assume, therefore, a government that included more women would produce a society more informed by these values. In a world threatened by ideological division, weapons of mass destruction and rapacious environmental exploitation, one could argue we desperately need such government. We need the feminine touch.

Unfortunately, that isn't what we got. Women make up only about one in five of the members of the House and the cabinet, and about one in ten of the governing party's caucus.

The political system, created over centuries by men for men is a thoroughly masculine, if not macho, structure. A more humane society requires a system that at least balances opportunity for women and therefore for the feminine. To see how this might be achieved, I humbly recommend my book Confessions of a Matriarchist.