Sylviane Agacinski, b. 1945
Background
French feminists proposed ‘parité’ – quotas for equal representation in government between men and women. This was published in Le Monde and some feminists didn’t like the emphasis on sex vs. citizenship. Agacinski, a French philosopher who was married to then French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, argued in support of ‘parité’ – it was not making sex a criterion, but only balancing government to fix a cultural wrong. It was successfully passed, and other countries went along to have a minimum for female representation, including Argentina, Germany, India, Israel, Sweden, Tanzania and Venezuela.
Recap
Parity was first proposed by Hubertine Auclert in 1880 who refused to pay taxes unless she could vote. Then in 1884 suggested representation should have an equal number of men and women. This presented a new utopian idea – women sharing political power on an equal plane with men, “together and equally.”. This same sentiment was expressed in 1996 in the Charter of Rome – that only 5% of the National Assembly of the Senate were women in 1996.
Laws never demanded mixity in having the same number of women as men in elected positions, but only refers to rights. The concept of parity demands sharing the power between men and women. “Parity really constitutes a politiacl interpretation of sexual difference.” Sharing power across sex.
We shy away -wanting to know the reasoning for wanting parity, since French universalism wants to know nothing about sexual difference. Being a woman “constitutes one of two essential ways of being a human being.” “It is the equal humanity of men and women that is at stake[…]” which is the basis for parity. A human rights issue.
Some are convinced we should have parity, but are too scared of the means to go about making it happen. But this decision should be democratic.
Equitable representation of women in office does not mean elected women must be mouthpieces of women’s issues. But the mixity in the national assembly should reflect the nation.
Reflection
If parity is sharing power along sexual difference, then proponents of parity in 2019 should want a representative number of each sexual variety – transgender and non-binary also.
Her critique on the Universalist conception is that “neutralizes” the actual differences between men and women. This returns us to the debate about accepting whether women and men are categorically different, or essentially the same.
Historically, the laws passed by her husband led to a reduction in funding for parties who did not have parity (or closer to it), which led to a much higher representation of women in the Assembly.
Readings of E.B. Freedman's Book 