Letter: You don't need a woman MP to represent women's interests
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Ms Ellie Lee
Sir: Those women looking for a career break in politics will undoubtedly be very put out by the decision to declare all-women shortlists illegal (report, 10 January). But why should the rest of us? Why should we equate more Labour women in Parliament with social progress for women as a whole?
It seems these days that we are supposed to believe without question that just because an MP is a woman, she will somehow be better for women as a whole. A glance at the record of Margaret Thatcher should swiftly put paid to this theory. So should a cursory glance at the track record of current MPs on women's rights. As it happens, for example, the most consistent defenders of a woman's right to abortion in the current Parliament are men: Harry Cohen and Harry Barnes. For me, their political opinions are therefore more important than their gender.
Social progress for women cannot be reduced to getting a few more female MPs in sharp suits on the Labour benches. It is about policies and who actually does something about women's rights. Because of this, the decision to prevent more women-only shortlists is neither here nor there.
Yours,
Ellie Lee
Oxford
9 January
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments