The hard left's problem with women

Feminism has never really been left wing.

Feminist has never really been left wing, so it's not surprising that there's a clash. The interventionist state is quite masculinist really, while open markets, careerism and 'egalitarian' economic structures are much more conducive to women's liberation in a sense. Hence, the deregulation of markets and the movement of women out of the home into the labour market have progressed in direct parallel.

Margaret Thatcher is routinely disowned by feminists, but really she was the best thing that ever happened for feminism. By destroying subsidised industry she disempowered men on a massive scale and undermined the nuclear family that confined women to the home.

Look at any chart showing average pay, and you'll see a gradual decrease in male pay and correspondent rise in female pay from the early 1980s.

Refusing to engage in a television debate is no evidence whatsoever.

You don't like her - fine. No problem with that. But to suggest any person who has gone through the process of selection to be a candidate for a mainstream party, won her seat, was selected by her party leader for ministerial and shadow ministerial posts, has been the longest serving Home Secretary and was chairman of her party is incapable of holding a political discussion is nonsense.

You've seen her on TV surely? Or not as she point blank refused to debate with anyone- how much more evidence is necessary for 'can't have a political discussion?'

Presumably because you can't think of any sensible reply to defend the "I can't imagine having a political discussion with Theresa May" comment.

Imagine if a man had written that. Poor ickle Theresa - she can talk about tights and flowers but not real stuff like politics.

lass you are making inferences that are just not there and I'm not even going to waste my time replying.

So a woman should be personable to lead a party? Gordon Brown wasn't, or Ed Milliband but nobody ever accused them of not being men

I know. What a load of tosh. Heath wasn't personable. Sturgeon tries to be but isn't. Cameron on the other hand is charming and I'm sure would be good fun if you were sitting next to him at a dinner.

All completely irrelevant as to whether or not they are good politicians and leaders.

If you read what I said, Thatcher/May are not like most women or men. They are not like most people full stop. They are not personable people, so I think it's misogynistic for them to be selected

That doesn't make your argument any better. Any person who reaches the heights of being prime minister presumably has characteristics which the average person in the street. All you are doing is finding a different way of saying - that Theresa May, she's not a nice woman.

and when I say I can imagine having a discussion with Warsi etc I don't mean about tights and flowers I mean political discussion. Could anyone imagine having a political discussion with May?

Are you serious? She is the longest serving Home Secretary and you can't imagine having a political discussion with her? You are perfectly entitled to dislike her and her policies but you are making up nonsense now.

To be honest if there is a misogynistic mindset it is in your posts - particularly that ridiculous comment about not being able to discuss politics.

So a woman should be personable to lead a party? Gordon Brown wasn't, or Ed Milliband but nobody ever accused them of not being men.

and when I say I can imagine having a discussion with Warsi etc I don't mean about tights and flowers I mean political discussion. Could anyone imagine having a political discussion with May?

If you read what I said, Thatcher/May are not like most women or men. They are not like most people full stop. They are not personable people, so I think it's misogynistic for them to be selected. The stereotypically 'nasty men' who ever get into power in the Tory Party never seem to lead it or if they do, never seem to win elections e.g. Ian Duncan Smith/Michael Howard. Why is that? David Cameron/John Major ...they were people with social skills why do the Tories only allow female leaders that don't have these?

I agree MostlyBowling about the "exception" thing but it is interesting how it happens. Remember Blair's Babes? I thought it was great 20 years ago, makes me kind of cringe now.

Re Stella Creasy :
The Guardian gives a slightly different slant on the story mentioned above about protesters targeting her house:
www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/dec/04/stella-creasy-crushes-story-about-protest-outside-her-house

I too get enraged by the "Thatcher got where she was because she was really a man on the inside" attitude. No, women can be all sorts of things - nurturing and caring, the re-incarnation of Atilla the Hun (my personal view of Thatcher), doesn't stop them being women. I think it does women a massive disservice to pretend we don't come in a wide range of personalities, good and bad.

And yes, my own experience of trade union politics is that there's a certain type of male trade unionist who doesn't give a shit about women - we should be bringing tea and sandwiches to the men on the picket lines, not campaigning for equality in the workplace in their eyes. I have met far too many of them not to have come to the conclusion that the left has feet of clay on women's rights.

(NB with the right, while they do have their Margaret Thatchers and Benjamin Disraelis and John Majors, the issue there is that such people are always thought to be "the exception that proves the rule" - that it doesn't generalise into a wider acknowledgement of structural inequalities in society. People who don't make it are deemed to have not made it because they were weak - "after all, look at [insert famous person from that background] - they made it, so you could have done if you'd just tried harder", not acknowledging that the person in question made it against the odds and that it was luck as well as talent, and, crucially, talent way in excess of what would be required of someone from inside the establishment.)

Agreed Lass, it's misogynistic nonsense to say Thatcher and May weren't/aren't "normal women", in fact it's a bit shocking

The Tories also produced a Jewish prime minister in Benjamin Disraeli and John Major, the son of a vaudeville star turned garden gnome maker.

The traditional trade union Labour party type is not running the labour party anymore.

I am a Labour voter but I am not blind to the misogynistic streak in the hard left/Trade Union wings of the party. You will note the MPs they target are women or a black man. There is a white, working class male element in the party personified by certain Trades Unions and the working mans club culture that really struggles with admitting anyone that isn't like them. They have a very traditional view of the work place that doesn't help women who want a more flexible employment pattern.Remember when dinner ladies had to take a case against their own TU because it had protected 'the full time working mans' interest at the expense of the female, part time workers?

I think the Tories have had more women in positions of power because their shire tory backbone is used to women magistrates and JPs and other leadership roles, so the traditional grass roots find it easier to accept women and their are more routes to leadership skills for women.

Huge generalisations obviously, but an element of truth.

Generally vote Labour, yes. I'm not prepared to turn a blind eye to the misogyny anymore.

I expect some voted for her and some voted for Corbyn, iyswim (although in the UK we vote for MP not party). We never know the breakdown on these things unless some analysis is done.

I expect lots of people held their nose and voted for their party candidate (the Tory Philip Davies, for example).

Why would you never vote Labour again without SC particularly? Are you historically a Labour voter?

What about everyone else in her constituency that aren't labour members but voted for her? Do they not count?

If they de-select her I will never vote Labour again.

She was the Labour candidate though, Queen. That's the point. Most people who want to deselect these candidates will have voted for them - because they're party members. That's why they want a different candidate - one who better represents their views. A more socialist candidate, generally.

The people of her constituency were more than happy to re-elect her so there should be no talk of deselecting her.

Creasy voted for airstrikes against Syria, which made a lot of people very angry. Her constituents protested peacefully outside her office, and she allowed that to be reported as an angry mob outside her house. When that claim was refuted by the protestors she was slow and equivocal in her response to the media. Some media commentators hinted (or said outright) that she was behind the original angry mob story.

She then told the media that her office had been "vandalized" by the protestors. It had not.

It swiftly became a story about poor Stella, victim of misogyny/bullying, rather than a story about protesting the Syria vote. She's a spinmaster.

It's this kind of weaselfuckery, rather than cross-party working on the recent abortion amendment, which has blotted her copybook.

A lot of people don't like SC. Talk of deselecting her for at least 18 months now, though I think she's safe now after the abortion win.