Feminism chat for right wingers

I dunno Lweji. Depressingly I don't think there is a single party in the country that is prepared to stand up and defend the market economy or wealth creation.

The PM may be hawkish on security stuff but economically she is barely a Tory. I don't think the party fully appreciated what it was getting into when they chose her as leader.

If we get to the next election and the Tories can't offer any more to voters than their own version of a magic money tree then they and we are in big trouble.

Interesting point of view from a conservative feminist.
And some interesting proposals, which I bet the left would be happy to take up instead.
I'd love to see some right wing leadership on this.
www.independent.co.uk/voices/conservative-party-feminism-women-carers-children-policy-economics-left-out-a8040081.html

Industries like that (and academia) should be challenged to think seriously about what that means for them.

Are right wing parties doing this?
Or who challenges these companies?
How will a certain type of men relinquish privileges if that means losing power to women, including at home?

It sounds like the type of utopia that the left is often accused of.

If all the men that can be convinced already have, how do we take the final steps?

And I remember that those famous Scandinavian countries aren't that great and haven't left it to the good will of capitalist company owners of directors.

But that was not what the post being queried said. The professional staff in my company are I would guess pretty much 50/50. There is no reason to suppose employing more women will improve competitiveness.

I think you're interpreting what I say rather uncharitably. I was saying "employ more women to improve competitiveness" in the context of a discussion about "what would the right wing approach be to increasing the number of women in the labour force". But if anyone has misunderstood, to be clear, I'm not advocating all firms employing e.g. 90% women as a way to improve competitiveness. That clearly wouldn't be effective. Nor am I advocating positive discrimination in favour of mediocre women. I'm saying that if your (general!) workforce is e.g. 70% men, that should be a sign you are clearly not recruiting ALL of the best people that you could be. Industries like that (and academia) should be challenged to think seriously about what that means for them.

If you Lass are open to recruiting the best from the widest talent pool possible then great. More firms need to be like that. Sadly many industries are shooting themselves in the foot by not considering hiring women or changing their working culture to make it more attractive to women, because they don't value women's talents or (wrongly) think they are doing just fine as an all boys club. I recognise that as a feminist.

It is bad business to employ mediocre men in place of high performing women!

Fully agree.
And yet many companies do. For lots of different reasons: perceptions, culture, bias, maternity leave and children...
Or pay less.

It's a well known phenomenon that women have to be much more competent than men to get the same recognition.

How do we change this?

If your employee gender balance is wildly out of kilter then that is a sign your company probably isn't as competitive as it should be. Isn't this obvious?

But that was not what the post being queried said. The professional staff in my company are I would guess pretty much 50/50. There is no reason to suppose employing more women will improve competitiveness.

Because if you exclude half of the population from working at your firm (or if you have hiring practices or a working culture that de facto exclude women) then you are for certain shooting yourself in the foot, because you are excluding half of the talent that could be working for you

I assume "you" is general not me- because if it is "me" you are making a ridiculous assumption.

I don't actually buy into the idea that employers generally prefer a mediocre man over a competent or a good woman. My experience of being an employee and an employer is, bizarrely, employers want the best candidate (or occasionally the least worst candidate).

I will not however employ a mediocre woman over a competent man.

throwing down the gauntlet to industry - asking them to challenge themselves and look at hiring more women as a way to improve their competitiveness.

How will that work in practice?
How does hiring more women improve competitiveness and increase profits?

I can't see any connection between hiring more women and increasing competitiveness. I have never employed, or not employed, a candidate on the basis of their sex.

Because if you exclude half of the population from working at your firm (or if you have hiring practices or a working culture that de facto exclude women) then you are for certain shooting yourself in the foot, because you are excluding half of the talent that could be working for you. Companies which employ roughly 50:50 men:women are very likely to have competitive advantage over those which don't because it indicates they are recruiting from the whole talent pool. It is bad business to employ mediocre men in place of high performing women! If your employee gender balance is wildly out of kilter then that is a sign your company probably isn't as competitive as it should be. Isn't this obvious?

It's the same in any field - the reason we need to achieve gender parity in STEAM fields is not just because that's nice for women but because it is bad for those fields to lose up to half of their potential top talent. It means we are not doing the best science and innovation that we could be.

throwing down the gauntlet to industry - asking them to challenge themselves and look at hiring more women as a way to improve their competitiveness.

How will that work in practice?
How does hiring more women improve competitiveness and increase profits?

I can't see any connection between hiring more women and increasing competitiveness. I have never employed, or not employed, a candidate on the basis of their sex.

And yet, Scandinavian countries are not THAT equal...

blogs.helsinki.fi/virtuallynordic/2017/03/08/a-womans-heaven-or-hell-gender-equality-in-the-nordic-countries/

"Well, are the Nordic countries a woman’s heaven or hell? Probably neither of it. Gender equality in the Nordic countries appears very much on the surface but a deeper look discovers many problems. Surely, Nordic women live a better life than a lot of their sisters in the entire world. And yes, also men experience inequalities. Inequalities appear not only through gender but also through race, class, disability and numerous categories. However, the lesson learned from this brief and rather incomplete discussion of gender equality in the Nordic countries is that labour market participation does not create equality between the sexes. To provide equality women need equal opportunities and not any opportunities in the public sphere. Furthermore, the state must also protect women in the private sphere. The high number of cases of violence against women in the Nordic countries are disgraceful for countries which claim to be the most gender equal in the world. Gender equality is not a pick and choose but comes as a package of all women in all areas being equal to all men, and here the Nordic countries surely still have a lot of catching up to do."

The countries with the highest gender equality in the world - Scandinavian countries - are capitalist. I mean, you can like it or not like it, but the correlation is staggering.

What is it about their capitalism that has contributed towards equality, as opposed to laws and social support?

More apologies to every one else.

OldmanOfTheWeb antiquated usually refers to a millennia or so. As social democracy is a term that became common in the twentieth century that is an incorrect description, perhaps superficial. Or perhaps you are having a discussion on an Internet forum and choose not to put every nuance in every comment.

I won't paraphrase - here is your quote:

No. That would as well define a communist state as a social democracy

You were responding to this point.

The key feature of social democracy is that the state intervenes to ensure equality

Not the only feature, the key feature. Communism is defined by far, far more than intervening to ensure equality. So your comment that state intervention to ensure equality would be defined as communism is incorrect.

It is moving "from capitalism" so it exists within in it but aims to move away. I don't think social democracy has changed, it is argued by some, the Nordic countries have moved to the right. The definition remains the countries have moved.

Also, you feel it is very important to define social democracy very tightly but throw 'capitalism' around with no definition. I'm not bothered it makes for a simple understanding but you really must demonstrate consistency.

Also in relation to gender equality and capitalism happening at the same time. This is a mistake that a simple analysis of history can lead to. Just because two things happen at the same time does automatically mean there is cause and effect. The rise of militant Islam has happened at the same time as the rise of rap music that does not mean one caused the other.

I want to know what legal measures that don't exist you think should be brought in.

Nice attempt at turning it around.
You seem to think that the right has solutions to achieve equality. I'm trying to understand what they are and how they can achieve equality in practice.
Particularly without legislation.

This is a thread about the right and feminism and I'm curious about. But so far I'm not convinced that the right offers any real solutions.
I'm all ears.

@OldmanOfTheWeb
Saying that one comment was misogynistic isn't a personal attack.

My point was that social democracy is where the state intervenes, you said no that is communism

Please don't misquote me. I said your statement would as well describe communism as it would social democracy. I.e. that your analysis is superficial and deliberately strips away the capitalism part of the definition.

True social democracy is a move towards socialism so coexists with but aims to reject capitalism.

Ah, you mean No True Scottish Democracy. As already proven, you are wedded to antiquated definitions that are rejected by Britannica, Meriam-Webster and Wikipedia. Please let this go.

So, maybe you'd like to rephrase that sentence, instead.

No, I would not. And throwing around personal attacks isn't welcome.

I've already said what I think about it. I did post that it needs to be imposed by law, but the right tends to be for less regulation.

Yes, you said that already, but what you haven't answered is WHAT you think needs to be imposed by law. A vague answer like "equality" doesn't explain anything. I want to know what legal measures that don't exist you think should be brought in.

Would a tax regime that levied more favourable business rates on companies that had a female CEO / majority of board / majority of employees be something that a right wing government would support?

Almost certainly not. Firstly, it's discriminatory. Secondly, it's harmful in that it's inherently anti-meritocratic. Thirdly, it's anti-competitive. If I start a business and am the CEO and a competitor starts a business and they are a woman, you're suggesting that my competitor should get tax breaks for being female!

But because of what?

Well if you're going to go by historical analysis - capitalism. We have more gender equality in the West than almost at any point in history. And that correlates with the rise of capitalism. If you look at regions of the world that have the best gender equality again, that correlates closely with capitalism. The countries with the highest gender equality in the world - Scandinavian countries - are capitalist. I mean, you can like it or not like it, but the correlation is staggering.

throwing down the gauntlet to industry - asking them to challenge themselves and look at hiring more women as a way to improve their competitiveness.

How will that work in practice?
How does hiring more women improve competitiveness and increase profits?

Everything is actually getting better

But because of what?
I posted earlier that the two equal pay laws were passed under Labour governments.

What positive changes have been brought about without laws?

What has the right brought to the table to improve things for women or to equality?
What was it proposed in the last tory manifesto?

That is why I'm interested in knowing what right-wingers are for and, if left for employers, for example, how do they see equality developing in practice, considering the last few decades.

But labour force equality has been steadily getting better over recent decades, on every measure. In 1971, women's employment rate was 53% - at the end of last year it was 71%. It has flattened out or dipped a couple of times around recessions as you would expect, but it is on the right trajectory. The gender pay gap for FT workers has fallen from 17% in 1997 to 9% in 2017. Globally, the number of women in senior roles is at an all time high. Everything is actually getting better - not at the rate at which we would like it to, but major societal change like this isn't quick or easy.

Would a tax regime that levied more favourable business rates on companies that had a female CEO / majority of board / majority of employees be something that a right wing government would support?

Generally no - this would distort competition. The way I think this should be achieved is a mix of social pressure and throwing down the gauntlet to industry - asking them to challenge themselves and look at hiring more women as a way to improve their competitiveness.

Using the tax system to encourage social change is a tactic usually used by the centre and left.

The only example I can think of where the right support tax benefits for social action is what was referred to as " married mans allowance" that has long since disappeared but some Tory MPs do sometimes mention it longingly.

Would a tax regime that levied more favourable business rates on companies that had a female CEO / majority of board / majority of employees be something that a right wing government would support?

I am probably now right of centre.I would not support that.

My apologies to every one else

OldmanOfTheWeb

Thanks for those definitions that proved my point.

My statements

The key feature of social democracy is that the state intervenes to ensure equality

Is correct and is proved so by the quote you provide.

1: a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means
2: a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practice

You said my point was wrong because:

No. That would as well define a communist state as a social democracy

My point was that social democracy is where the state intervenes, you said no that is communism. You then provided the second reference that proves my point.

You also reference wiki, but really we are tying to be serious here.

As to the relationship between social democracy and capitalism it is very complex. Until the last 20 ( ish) years the Nordic countries were true social democracies. It is true a good argument could be made to say that is no longer the case although many Scandinavians I know would take exception.

True social democracy is a move towards socialism so coexists with but aims to reject capitalism.

Please don't be one of those posters that can't admit they are a patronising dick and discussing complex issues in a thread means nuance is missed.

A position I'd support would be 6 months parental leave on full pay for both sexes.
(SMP paid for 12 months to either sex too).

In practice that would mean that employers have to make up the difference between SMP & the actual wage for the 6 months, then the wage drops to just SMP for the remaining 6.

That would immediately make a level playing field for both sexes at the interview stage as women aren't viewed as the default parent, and also removes the 'my husband earns more so we couldn't afford for him to take parental leave' trap that many women find themselves in.

Parents can then have a proper choice wrt sharing parental leave.

I'd really like to see a right-wing position on this. So far, very little.

Would a tax regime that levied more favourable business rates on companies that had a female CEO / majority of board / majority of employees be something that a right wing government would support?

Thinking out loud here. It's not saying "you must not do this" (discriminate against women, in this example). It's not dictating how a company must operate (companies could still continue with their male dominated board, but pay higher tax). It simply incentivises companies that behave in a particular way