Feminism chat for right wingers

I did post that it needs to be imposed by law, but the right tends to be for less regulation. 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

Caveat: not a right winger. But I would imagine that the argument goes along the lines of the market / open competition should allow women to succeed because companies have an interest in ensuring that they hire the best person for the job and promoting talent, and the law of averages says that a good proportion of that is in the female half of the population.

It obviously completely overlooks the systemic and structural issues that hamper women's progression at work, which is where - IMO - legislation is needed to give business more than a nudge in the right direction

Sorry, lots of typos and bad grammar.

Imposed by law, left for employers to implement it as they please, or just allowed and see what happens?

This is what I've been asking you.

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. 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.

Tended not to have the qualities that suited them for those jobs.

So.... no, no apologies. Still think it's misogynistic.

"Those jobs" are top jobs that women have taken in other countries. It's not an opinion for a small number of jobs, but across all top jobs available. While women candidates may not have the required qualities for one given post. It's unlikely that women in general don't have the qualities for top jobs.

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

I don't like May because as Home Secretary she was very authoritarian and brought in legislation I think is dangerous. But as far as Brexit, that's not her fault and actually she tried to stop it. She's been handed an impossible situation and is doing her best with it. History will remember her more kindly, imo.

Even her disastrous calling of the General Election is only appreciated as such with hindsight. Nearly all the polls predicted a positive outcome for the Tories and she needed a larger majority in order to deal with rebels in her own party. It was tactically the right thing to do.

She's an intelligent and competent politician who regrettably has the people skills of a stoat.

Mirialis I do believe Teresa may to be a fundamentally decent woman. I think, over time, that perception may become more general. She has had so much crap thrown at her - I cannot think of a single man, right or left, from all her critics who would do better. Jeremy? Boris? Jacob?? Don’t make me laugh

@Moussemoose. You've just snipped out three lines from a multi-paragraph entry and called it "Britannica's definition". Here is Britannica's entry:

www.britannica.com/topic/social-democracy

Here is part that you conveniently skipped:
"In the second half of the 20th century, there emerged a more moderate version of the doctrine, which generally espoused state regulation, rather than state ownership, of the means of production and extensive social welfare programs."

And here is Merriam-Webster:
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20democracy

^"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"^

And here is Wikipedia:

"Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes; and is often associated with the set of socioeconomic policies that became prominent in Northern and Western Europe—particularly the Nordic model in the Nordic countries—during the latter half of the 20th century."

and...

"The rise of Keynesianism in the Western world during the Cold War influenced the development of social democracy.[108] The attitude of social democrats towards capitalism changed as a result of the rise of Keynesianism. Capitalism was acceptable to social democrats only if capitalism's typical crises could be prevented and if mass unemployment could be averted: Keynesianism was believed to be able to provide this.[109] Social democrats came to accept the market for reasons of efficiency and endorsed Keynesianism as that was expected to reconcile democracy and capitalism."

For reasons unknown to me but presumed ideological you are trying to deny that the Scandinavian countries are capitalist and that Social Democracy is capitalist; you are wedding yourself to an antiquated definition that is known to be antiquated even by your own source (you just cut out parts that conflicted). Please don't be one of those posters who simply cannot accept they were wrong. If you genuinely believe that the Scandinavian countries are "moving towards socialism" as you claim, then they've been at it for a very long time and been increasing privatisation whilst they're doing so. Which would be a rather odd thing. So even if, in contradiction to modern definitions we accepted your version, you'd only be proving the Scandinavian countries weren't social democracies in your own opinion.

Now, I can't imagine this is interesting to many others.

Apart from the shock at the misogyny shown,

Please don't throw accusations like that at me. I filled out a couple of alternative explanations to show that your conclusion was an assumption on your part. It's not misogynistic to say that there may be different tendencies between men and women.

And I'd kind of like an apology.

Imposed by law, left for employers to implement it as they please, or just allowed and see what happens?

This is what I've been asking you.

It was a simple comment about contradictions. Having the two leaders is in spite of not being particularly pro-women. I think it's interesting to try and understand why. The dame applies for the Lib Dems, for sure

Exactly. Same here. I've said it before on the thread, but I'm not a right winger, so not the right person to make the case for right wing feminism. But it's surely worth thinking about how history and RL have played out because of / despite ideological underpinnings of respective parties.

As an aside, though, being party leader is obviously important but really not the same as being PM. Only the most politically nerdy young girls will know who is the Leader of the Opposition (never mind the leader of the smaller parties), whereas most children will know the PM. The opportunities for being an inspiration to the next generation are somewhat limited as a party leader vs actual PM

If having 2 female leaders really is an example of showing how pro-women a Party is, surely you should be calling out the LibDems, not dismissing the Labour women leaders.

That was not what I said in my original post about the 2-0 leaders.

It was a simple comment about contradictions. Having the two leaders is in spite of not being particularly pro-women. I think it's interesting to try and understand why. The dame applies for the Lib Dems, for sure

Thanks for starting this thread - going to go back and read in detail but just wanted to add to this:

As well as women2win....

We should also respect Mrs may for her work on modern slavery. She drove that legislation and that work. I hope it will be her legacy rather than the shitshow that is Brexit. Some hope

When Cameron resigned he took full credit for marriage equality and Lynne Featherstone - the architect of the law - immediately came out to say that it was TM who was instrumental in getting it through, not DC.

“So both were caretaker leaders - neither had the clout to actually do anything, and neither were elected leaders”

Still 2 more than the LibDems who, in their various guises, have been going a lot longer than the Labour party.

If having 2 female leaders really is an example of showing how pro-women a Party is, surely you should be calling out the LibDems, not dismissing the Labour women leaders.

men are facilitated by women to progress in their careers , even in ways we might not have thought about, and long mat leave is the start of that.

Also my personal experience.

My husband took equal responsibility for parenting & family stuff, including housework etc.

We both shared the responsibilities when the kids were sick, dropping off/picking up from nursery etc, and we took turns in prioritising our respective careers (he would take priority for a stretch until a promotion, then I would and so on).
As a result, we both progressed & we both were involved in the daily drudgery too.

We have since split up, and he is still a huge & active part of the kids lives - not just 'taking his turn' every other week, but in the daily minutiae of their lives too.

He says that his experiences of being equally involved & responsible & of having to make career sacrifices along the way have shaped how he is now that he is in a high position, and that he is 'different' to many of his peers.
He has a better understanding of how women (especially single mothers) have to juggle everything, and is active in facilitating their needs & is intolerant of the men who bitch about their female coworkers 'getting special treatment' (those men are usually being fully facilitated by their wives).

I have 2 boys, and they are socialised to this set up - I expect that they'll follow their dad's (& my) lead and will follow the same pattern.

men are facilitated by women to progress in their careers , even in ways we might not have thought about, and long mat leave is the start of that.

Yy, IfNot. That's exactly how I feel (and my personal experience)

Becket: She was the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party under John Smith from 1992 to 1994, and briefly served as Leader of the Labour Party after Smith died suddenly

And Harman had the same role between Brown and Miliband

So both were caretaker leaders - neither had the clout to actually do anything, and neither were elected leaders

But - what does all that mean for the baby?
I think that in some Scandinavian countries parents get equal amounts of parental leave on the birth of a baby, but if both don't utilise it, they lose it. My friend in Sweden took the first 6 months, her partner took the next 6 months.
So, the care of baby, rather than being solely the responsibility of the mother, and then outsourced childcare (with the mother squeezing her work around nurserydrop off/ pick ups) can become (with the normalising of involved fathers) the responsibility of BOTH parents.

I don't see how that can be bad for a child, and it can only be good for women.
So, with regard to long mat leave I would agree it has been harmful to women's careers because by the time the 9 months/year is over, the woman's role as the default parent is solidified.
I don't know if anyone read the thread on here a few months ago about facilitated men? It was fascinating to read how over and over men are facilitated by women to progress in their careers , even in ways we might not have thought about, and long mat leave is the start of that.
Men have children too. The state HAS to play a role in legislating to support that idea, because private industry (mainly run by men) is never going to voluntarily level the playing field.
As an aside,It's not even funny how many times overstuffed, overpaid middle aged men have said to me lately that women don't really "want" the top jobs..
It's usually the same men that deny white priveledge by quoting some statistic about how the best paid men are actally South East Asian.
It's almost as though they are all reading the same things on the Internet. .
And then they come here and pontificate about feminism.
It's so tiring.

A poster upthread referred to voting for parties 'apart from ukip, obviously'. I just googled ukip transgender policies and something called ukip daily came up.

www.ukipdaily.com/the-transgender-agenda/

Hope link works. I would describe myself as socialist at heart, but am horrified at how Labour are throwing women under the bus. Comes to something when only ukip can see through the madness.

@OldmanOfTheWeb

Based on 19th-century socialism and the tenets of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, social democracy shares common ideological roots with communism but eschews its militancy and totalitarianism. Social democracy was originally known as revisionism because it represented a change in basic Marxist doctrine, primarily in the former’s repudiation of the use of revolution to establish a socialist society

This is Britannicas definition.

Therefore my statement:

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

Is correct and your comment:

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

Is irrelevant. There are similarities between social democracy and communism as social democracy is based on communism.

You state that a social democracy is a capitalist state. Social democracy exists within capitalism and uses its structures but is moving towards socialism.

Becket She was the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party under John Smith from 1992 to 1994, and briefly served as Leader of the Labour Party after Smith died suddenly

Which explains why I didn't remember her as leader...

I’d like to take issue with a couple of points made earlier.

It was claimed that only the Consevatives have had two female leaders. That’s not actually true. Labour, too, have had two female leaders in Margaret Beckett and Harriet Harman.
The fact that the Conservative leaders were Prime Ministers becomes less impressive when you consider the relative time that both Parties have spent in Government.

In fact, it’s the Liberals/Liberal Democrats who have yet to elect a female leader. Yet no-one accuses them of misogyny. I wonder why?

Nor do I agree that Theresa May has done a great deal for feminism. A Prime Minister that bundles childcare into women’s interests, as she did when she created a Minister for Women, Equality and Early Years, is showing her true colours, in my opinion.

Tax Credits are being attacked as an example of a damaging Blair policy. In fact, they were the latest in a long line of such policies first introduced by the Conservative Heath Government.
Why are they fine under Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher and John Major, but sudfenly bad news under Tony Blair? And why is Universal Credit any better?

The last Labour Government did a great deal for the Childcare and Early Years industry, which is a female dominated one. I don’t see that high regard for professional childcarers and educators shown by the Conservatives - quite the opposite!

Really interesting, thanks.

I just wonder if women in more gender equal countries feel more free to pursue less profitable professions, as they suggest, or if non-STEM professions are also valued more in more gender equal countries.

As a STEM professional myself, I can also see that the women I meet from those countries may also feel integrated in a wider community where their gender is less of an issue and better accepted. Or get more opportunities to get out.

But STEM is very diverse. My field is female heavy, but others are much less so.

It could potentially indicate that but it could also indicate that women either:
· Tended not to want such jobs
· Tended not to have the qualities that suited them for those jobs.

This ^ is just total bollocks btw.

Not necessarily, at least for the first point - recent data is interesting (www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/).

The more men who utilise this, the better it will become for women in 'equality of opportunity' due to not being viewed through the prism of 'she's probably going to be off on maternity at some point, whereas he isn't' at the interview stage for example.

So, how is this policy supposed to be implemented from a right wing point of view?

Imposed by law, left for employers to implement it as they please, or just allowed and see what happens?

but you refuse to discuss actual practicality of looking after a small baby!!

I support the shared parental leave policy.

The more men who utilise this, the better it will become for women in 'equality of opportunity' due to not being viewed through the prism of 'she's probably going to be off on maternity at some point, whereas he isn't' at the interview stage for example.

Wrt 'who looks after a small baby''
How small is small?

I had just over 4 months maternity with my eldest, and 6 months with my youngest - they started childcare when I went back to work.

It could potentially indicate that but it could also indicate that women either:
· Tended not to want such jobs
· Tended not to have the qualities that suited them for those jobs.

This ^ is just total bollocks btw.

My previous post spoken towards squarecorners, just to make it clear.