Abstract
Discourse analysis of the rhetoric of the legislators during the 21 Bill debates and the ‘gender quota’ motion for candidate selection for MPs and appointment to the Senate, are presented in this chapter. The main findings were that (1) the women legislators were more likely to gender their contributions in favour of women, (2) gender as a social construct was integrated in the contributions of the legislators, (3) intra-group differences among women were acknowledged by the legislators, (4) the number of women in the Houses of Parliament does not need to reach a critical mass for them to substantively represent women in the society, (5) the gender of the representatives cannot be discounted but is not a crucial factor to consider in the substantive representation of women in the Jamaican society, and (6) institutional bodies are critical actors for women in Jamaica. Although there were no strong opposition to the ‘gender quota’ motion, some Senators abstained from taking a definitive position. The main arguments used to support the implementation of gender quotas is gender equality (women must be present in greater numbers) and difference (women have different interests than men, which women legislators are better able to represent). On the other hand, the main argument used to oppose the use of gender quotas is that it goes against the principle of equal opportunity for all.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
