How male hegemony thrives in Parliament

When she was interviewed for an article by Leonard Onyango (Daily Nation, November 1, 2023), Samburu West Member of Parliament (MP), Naisula Lesuuda, mentioned that during her tenure as a nominated Senator in the 11^th parliament, “a seasoned politician openly questioned the presence of young girls" in the House. The experience may appear isolated and harmless. However, it is symptomatic of male entitlement to power, which is commonplace globally. It straddles two forms of discrimination - ageism and gender bias. The senator did not expect “girls” (women), more so young ones, in the august institution. In his mind, this entity belonged to men, and the elderly.

In the Critical Mass Theory, this sentiment falls under men’s hegemonic behaviours collectively called “assimilation” – pushing women to “fit pre-existing generalisations”. More specifically, it constitutes “status levelling” – treating women in official spaces as intruders. This may also be called the mistaken identity or imposter problem.

Read also: It's time to call out politicians using sexist language

This attitude is an extension of the glass ceiling mentality, that women are not welcome beyond a certain level in the hierarchy. This leads to another problem, that of co-optation. Women who defy this norm are condescendingly considered exceptional, leading to being co-opted into the men’s club. But this comes at a price: the co-opted women have to maintain loyalty to their male colleagues for continued acceptance. This compromises their independence and drives them to adopt the hegemonic behaviours of men by treating their female colleagues as inferior. Through this, men are able to perpetuate their dominance and break the solidarity among women to effect change.    

Lesuuda mentioned a second incident when names of senators to sit on an impeachment committee were read by a senior senator. “When he reached my name”, she said, “he referred to me as a member who was going to add colour to the committee”. This depicts a mindset that women do not have substance hence, are only in public spaces for aesthetic purposes. County women representatives are familiar with this as they are often referred to as “flower girls”, which implies that they are superfluous, much as Form Ones in high schools are told that they exist to be seen not heard.

Legislative influence

Expecting women to offer visual enchantment to their male colleagues, morphs into treatment as sex objects. There is evidence that women in parliament are subject to comments about their dressing and physical appearance, and to use of personal endearments instead of honorific words. Documentation by the Inter-parliamentary Union indicates that such behaviour has been reported in the United States of America, France, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uganda and Tanzania. Such attention diverts women from the purpose for which they are in parliament to self-defence, which weakens their legislative influence.

A case similar to Lesuuda’s occurred in the 11^th national Assembly when a male legislator termed a female colleague as “beautiful”. The latter promptly reminded him that she was in parliament to “contribute substantively to change the lives of women of Kenya” not to not to beautify its seats.

Attention to women’s physical attributes rather than technical competence falls under the theoretical category of “tokenism eclipse” - that women’s presence in male-dominated spaces is enough achievement even if they do nothing else. If women conform to such expectations, they become complacent and ineffective.   

Victim blaming

Sexual attention is a trap called “temptress”. This refers to treatment of women as sources of sexual gratification for male colleagues. It is a double-edged sword: those who comply lose moral credibility; those who don’t are alienated as a punishment. One way in which this is done is to turn around and accuse the women of attracting the sexual attention. This is technically called victim blaming, a technique of inversion that makes it difficult for the aggrieved to complain. Thus, perpetrators of such acts are not held accountable hence, continue their vile acts with impunity. As pointed out by Hamby, S and Grych, J (2014) in The complex dynamics of victimisation: Understanding differential vulnerability without blaming the victim, this tactic legitimises injustice, casts the aggrieved party into a permanent loser position, sustains stigma and makes it difficult to seek redress.

Intrinsic to the two incidents cited by Lesuuda, is trivialisation of women. In Myanmar, for example, women legislators were referred to as “little sisters” to demean them and insinuate that they needed the patronage of their male colleagues. In many instances, a point is taken more seriously when made by a man even when a woman preceded him in doing so, indicating that significance is predicated on the gender of the interlocutor.

If men in parliament can treat women with this kind of contempt, what should we expect from the ordinary man? Would such legislators be trusted to promote gender equality?

The writer is an international gender and development consultant and scholar ([email protected])