Interests and Representation

By illustrating the history of representation and providing possible reasons for the current situation, a basis for a better understanding of today's situation can be formed. By shedding light on the current struggles women face in gaining more and better representation, we can see what problems are out there in society. Finally, suggestions of possible strategies for winning more representation can help women discover their identities and recognize that they do have viable political concerns.

Virginia Sapiro points out that it wasn't that people said women shouldn't be represented. It was assumed that their interests were the same as whoever happened to have charge of them, whether a father, brother or husband. Ms. Sapiro seems to believe that it was held in society that the one providing the sustenance had charge of determining interests, while the woman, dependant upon the male for her livelihood, would naturally have interests identical to those of the one who provided for her.

While Irene Diamond and Nancy Hartsock disagree on other points, they seem to agree with this analysis. They look at the division of labor as a cause for this. Because the home functions fall traditionally to the female, they must be dependent on the male to provide the food. Thus, their interests are not considered valid outside the interests of the breadwinners. Diamond and Hartsock make a point to include a theory of Simone de Beauvoir's. Beauvoir theorizes that women lost their status by being the givers of life rather than the takers. She pointed out that it is "in risking life that man is raised above the animal" (p.196). The two then point out that this is a ‘reversal' of the true natural order of things. Women should not be seen as inferior because of their ability.