Feminism chat for right wingers

You're basically proving my point there fella.

Sadly, you just remind me of bro's beneath a Guardian feminist article circa. 2016!

I move on from this conversation, now, and leave it, because you're discussing ideology, but you refuse to discuss actual practicality of looking after a small baby!!

Markets don't function properly without individuals having agency - so if half of the population doesn't have the freedom to make the choices which are in their own interests, the market is inefficient. Patriarchal societies limit their own growth potential because they limit women's choices. So feminism is necessary for markets to work properly to produce prosperity. For example, having the ability, as a woman, to control your own fertility massively increases your choices and brings enormous economic gains not just for you but for everyone around you.

Markets are generally, in the broad sweep of history, on the side of feminism because competition (assuming you don't have crony capitalism/corporate welfarism, which I would argue is not at all what right wing economic policy should be about) is disruptive to power - free markets disperse power away from existing elites, whether they are corporate or political, which is usually in women's interests. I think one can argue that markets have not yet dispersed power enough, but we are broadly on the right trajectory. We are talking a very long time scale here.

Another example - I don't think it's a coincidence that the strongest market economy in the world (the USA) was the first to develop the contraceptive pill - it was free market forces that enabled that, in the face of enormous opposition from men, the church and the state to women being able to control their fertility and have sex without risk of pregnancy.

Long maternity leave has lots and lots of benefits, but it does set up the proposition that women make lots of changes to their life to have a baby but men take off a couple of weeks then carry on as before (or maybe even better than before, as they now have a partner at home to support them)

I support generous parental leave provision but I completely agree with this

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.

I don't buy this at all

It's not my place to decide who is the most appropriate carer for other people's children. Is it yours?

whoever is the most appropriate according to their situation, obviously

What would you consider the most appropriate and in which situations?

Just vague notions.

What would you welcome in a manifesto? What do you think is fair? What would you think would work best?

Lweji - the basic principles of libertarianism, preferably enshrined in a document enforceable by a democratically accountable (under universal suffrage) legal and governmental system.
I infinitely prefer that to the left's solution, which is by force.

Um, whoever is the most appropriate according to their situation, obviously.

I am in favour of equality of opportunity, discussion and awareness of women's issues and protecting the rights and freedoms of women and girls

I am curious, and possibly why I'm in this thread, but nobody has really answered it yet.

What practical measures does the right (or you) suggest to ensure equality of opportunity, and to protect the rights and freedoms of women?

squarecorners :
So. in your brave world - who looks after the baby? Please, tell me!

Your post does not even touch that.

Whereas in reality, it's a clincher.

I'm what I call a pragmatic libertarian (and generally more right than left) but I think in this day and age you can't have even a mainstream, right wing discussion on female liberation and empowerment and call it feminism because the left have basically claimed ownership of the term, conflated cultural and economic marxist ideologies with the rights and interests of women and generally demonstrated why we can't have nice things.
I am in favour of equality of opportunity, discussion and awareness of women's issues and protecting the rights and freedoms of women and girls but I'll never call myself a feminist.

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.´

Apart from the at the misogyny shown, you seem to have missed the bit where the number of women in top positions was lower in Scandinavian countries than other countries including the US.
So, it's something to do with the countries and their culture or politics and not with being women. But don't let it spoil your narrative.

Very interesting reading, and it's made me think; and I am not being sarcastic now.

But - what does all that mean for the baby? (Which should be the focus in all this, FFS!) If neither mother nor father is willing to give the necessary practical care for that small, young baby?

Six weeks off for post-maternity is, frankly, mad, in my view. (Have had three, while being a working woman, with varying maternity leaves, depending on circumstances. But six weeks is still mad. I was still bleeding fairly heavily after the birth, at six weeks, with all three of them, for example..)

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

No. That would as well define a communist state as a social democracy. A social democracy is a primarily capitalist state (private ownership) where taxes support a welfare state and other social support structures. You omit a critical element in your description.

TheQuestingVole has a much better understanding. In particular they are absolutely spot on in bringing up Norway's oil boom. You could point to the high per capita GDP and wealth of Saudi Arabia as well and you wouldn't think it an indicator of effective government there!

So this I would take as potentially indicative that the welfare systems in Scandinavian countries promote a superficial equality but actually play a role in keeping women at the bottom of the economic pile relative to men.

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.

Note, there is overlap between the two. One of the key personality indicators for CEOs et al. is Disagreeableness. And men are more commonly disagreeable than women. (I mean this as the psychological trait).

Which brings us back to my opinion that the key differentiator between a Right Wing feminist and a Left Wing feminist will be the focus on Equality of Opportunity vs. Equality of Outcome respectively.

while the Nordic countries have near equal labour force participation for men and women (much more equal than the UK), they fall behind the OECD average (and WAY behind the Anglophone average, especially the USA) for share of senior managers who are women.

My pet theory for the prevalence of women in senior roles in the US is that short maternity leave (six weeks is pretty standard, if not generous) helps establish from the off that looking after a child is a joint endeavour, for professional women at least. Long maternity leave has lots and lots of benefits, but it does set up the proposition that women make lots of changes to their life to have a baby but men take off a couple of weeks then carry on as before (or maybe even better than before, as they now have a partner at home to support them)

I'm not advocating shorter mat leave, BTW, and in theory shared parental leave should go some way to bridge this gap, but it's an interesting upside to the short mat leave (or even sickness leave, as I believe it is classified...)

So this I would take as potentially indicative that the welfare systems in Scandinavian countries promote a superficial equality but actually play a role in keeping women at the bottom of the economic pile relative to men.

True, which is why they're trying to correct it with equal parenting leave for men and women.
Well see if they'll get more women in the top positions.

My view is that feminism and markets reinforce each other.

How?

The Tory party is centre left in which universe?

Economics are not the only way a party is defined.

Possibly, possibly in the 1950s under consensus politics the Tory party was a centrist party. Centre left nowadays, don't make me laugh.

I'm sorry sweetheart but the tory party is very cebtre left most of the time. Go read a book on basic economics.

I was reading an interesting article the other day which presented some evidence that while the Nordic countries have near equal labour force participation for men and women (much more equal than the UK), they fall behind the OECD average (and WAY behind the Anglophone average, especially the USA) for share of senior managers who are women. So this I would take as potentially indicative that the welfare systems in Scandinavian countries promote a superficial equality but actually play a role in keeping women at the bottom of the economic pile relative to men.

Scandinavian countries are not that capitalist. They have huge social support by comparison.

You have to have a particular kind of economy for this kind of high tax, high welfare model to work well though - Norway in particular relies very heavily on exploitation of natural resources to achieve what it does. Its welfare system is backed up by the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world, the basis of which is the nation's oil revenues. This model is unachieveable in the UK because we just don't have the same economy structure - we don't have anything like the same scale of natural resources. Nor would I like to try to argue that a high-carbon, high-consumption, heavily-extractive economy is feminist - it is environmentally unsustainable - we should all be trying to decarbonise our economies, not copy Norway ...

If you really believe in the free market, my view is that you have to take feminism seriously, because markets don't work properly without it. In fact I don't think it's a coincidence that modern feminism and the theory of the free market emerged at roughly the same time - and in roughly the same place. My view is that feminism and markets reinforce each other.

The U.K. is not a social democracy. Possibly during the 1950s it might have been described as such but Thatcher destroyed our claim to social democracy.

The key feature of social democracy is that the state intervenes to ensure equality. Take a look at the homeless on our streets and any claim to social democracy crumbles.

Also a lefty here but thanks for starting the thread - I'll be really interested to hear the views coming from the right. It's an important discussion.

aren't Scandinavian countries social democracies, rather than socialist?

Yes- social democracies- as is the UK.

I agree re Justine Greening being given the shitty end of the stick, though

Elendon - aren't Scandinavian countries social democracies, rather than socialist? (If I understand it correctly, the key distinction is that means of production are privately rather than government owned, and the market leads on how resources are used rather than the government)

I'm not the person to argue about how great right wing governments are for women - I'm not a right winger!