In a recent article for Varsity, Micha Frazer-Carroll rightfully pointed out that women are underrepresented in academia, politics and the media. Whilst that is regrettably true, I would still question some points in her argument.

Women are underrepresented in professorship, filling a disappointing 15.6 per cent of places in Cambridge and 20.8 per cent nationally. Distasteful as it is, I disagree with Micha’s attack on reading lists as “sexist”. Martin Luther King said we should judge individuals based on the content of their character rather than their skin, and the same applies to academia about gender. Judge based on content of argument, not characteristics of identity.

Individuals go to university to extend their knowledge and develop a critical mind. Just because we read literature written mostly by males, it does not mean we will unconditionally absorb everything presented. Why does it matter if what I am reading is written by a man, a woman, white, black or Asian? Why should their identity have an impact on the content? Academia is not about judging the character; it is about reading the content of their arguments and coming to your own conclusions.

It is not the job of academics to be representative. Their job is to produce new theories and contribute to their individual field. Representation is a matter for politicians. Quoting psychological and political research, Micha emphasised the importance of representation, namely how it “boosted self-esteem” and she describes the essence of representation as follows: “Where I see people who are like me, I feel happy about myself and feel like I fit in”.

At the cost of sounding pedantic and anecdotal in my reasoning, I have to disagree. Margaret Thatcher is the only woman in Britain who has managed to climb her way up the male-dominated hierarchy and become Prime Minister. If I were to use the basic concept of representation presented by Mischa, it should go unquestioned that I, as a woman, would see Margaret Thatcher and feel happy because she represents me as a woman.

But, Margaret Thatcher and I, apart from biology, have nothing in common. She was a woman, she was powerful and she was apparently a representative for women despite her famous statement, “I owe nothing to women’s liberation”. If Margaret Thatcher was in power now, I can happily say I would not feel that I 'fit in', I would not identify with her, I would not be inspired, and I would most certainly not vote for her. What Mrs. Thatcher demonstrates is that women may break the glass ceiling, but this does not mean that she will have women’s interests at heart. What she does represent is her own interests.

Gender is not essential for representation or to produce a feeling of self-esteem. Similarity in characteristics does not equate to an individual’s self-confirmation. As an immigrant, working class woman, if I were faced with a choice between voting for a man who ameliorated my economic and social condition or Margaret Thatcher, I could not hesitate. I would vote for the man.

This fixation on gender is reactionary. Of course, I am not suggesting that this means that people should have free reign to discriminate you on the grounds of identity or should not promote social mobility for women, ethnic minorities or older people. Positive discrimination is necessary because it allows people from marginalised backgrounds to fulfil their potential as human beings. This, however, is not a question of representation. Social mobility is not achieved through representation, but through social justice. Representation of women in parliament does not elevate other women from their conditions; it just makes it appear so.

The microcosmic representation advocated by Micha’s is a false principle because of its narrowness. It only regards a person’s biological features as essential while excluding the social and economic conditions of women. I would like to emphasise class as a factor that is missing from Micha’s argument. A middle-class woman that is a so-called inspiration with her well-paid job is unlikely to encourage, or even represent, a woman that survives on a depressingly mediocre wage, works part-time and has no alternative. An upper-class woman pretending to represent the working class woman is infuriating. She represents women, but how will her bourgeois interests change the position of most women in society?

If we are talking about representation within governmental institutions such as Parliament, we must ask why individuals go to Parliament in the first place. Most obviously, to advance society through government policy. Representation does not guarantee this as long as it is fixated on economic-blind identity. You may be a middle-class woman and champion feminism, but you will not be able to eradicate the feminisation of poverty if you remain blissfully unaware of it. Class is imperative when it comes to representation. Indeed, isn’t class another form of identity? Sex and ethnicity (to an extent) are identities which one is born with. Class is imposed on you - but with the right policies it can change.

Cuba, Rwanda and Sweden are countries with the highest parliamentary representation of women. What have they actually done for women in the country? Have they helped the economic situation of women? Inequality Watch reports that Sweden has one of the largest gender poverty gaps in Europe. Women in Cuba have to resort to prostitution to survive. Rwanda, who has the highest parliamentary woman representation in the world, still has nearly 60% of the population living on less than $1.25 a day. Unsurprisingly, the majority are women.

Government policy and the progress of society are inevitably linked with class. The presence of a middle-class white woman may make faux progressives gush and shout “equality” with zeal, but the substance of that representation is void.