Feminism chat for right wingers

Lweji - I think you're somewhat missing my point. Are you saying employers should be made to do these things by law? I mean we're talking about your view that the Conservatives haven't done enough to bring about equal pay. So is that what you're saying?

But as the context is pay gaps, what are you proposing employers should do / be made to do about it?

That is the problem with leaving it to employers. And that is why capitalism isn't particularly feminist friendly.

One way to equalise it is to offer and encourage both parents to take the same leave, for example. To ensure that workers really don't work more than XX hours per week, regardless of sex, and parental status. To support child care costs.
There are many measures that have increasingly been adopted, but most have to be through laws or regulations.
Leaving it to employers discretion won't work.

The only way you can avoid compromise entirely is to stand as a candidate yourself. Which you can do.

I agree to a certain extent but I was merely highlighting that both myself as a Labour voter and my friends as Conservative voters (they all prefix Tory with died in the wool) this isn't a compromise at all. Compromise is part of the election process. The feminist angle on this is what do you compromise?

The issue is that women shouldn't be penalised for having children.

Well that would be lovely. But as the context is pay gaps, what are you proposing employers should do / be made to do about it?

No it doesn't and to say so means you have little idea of the election process and the candidates who stand in the different constituencies. It is not a democratic process at all, especially when you factor in first past the post system. All voters make compromises when voting for a party because no party is ideal.

First Past the Post is a problem, I agree. But it's not a gender issue. Nor is the inevitable necessity of compromising. The only way you can avoid compromise entirely is to stand as a candidate yourself. Which you can do. The question was why are there more men than women in parliament. The answer is that this is the outcome of voting.

Have to add that I do have Tory voting friends and in the constituency I live in they are frustrated that the standing MP gets voted in every time to stand for re-election without anyone else being considered. They feel frustrated and partially disenfranchised by this because, for example, they support remaining in the EU and they support gay marriage and abortion (all of which their MP opposes).

I have been reading this thread with interest. I'm a centre Labour voter, though no longer a member, mainly because of their stand on Brexit which at the moment is non negotiable until something positive is done - so far a negative approach seems to be the policy.

I have to disagree with Oldman in this:

But again, the populace elects who it chooses.

No it doesn't and to say so means you have little idea of the election process and the candidates who stand in the different constituencies. It is not a democratic process at all, especially when you factor in first past the post system. All voters make compromises when voting for a party because no party is ideal.

I don't have much time but...

I'm not sure what you expect the government to do about women having children. Stop it?

The issue is that women shouldn't be penalised for having children.

As far as I'm concerned, that's entirely within an individual's own control - it's not mandated that 'women must do that'.

Yes. I think that's a big part of the divide between Left and Right. The Left tend to say "But why doesn't the government solve this" as almost a reflex, like the state is your parent.

NRFT yet, but good idea OP, thanks for this.
I'm about as far from right wing as you can get in some ways. I'm not a liberal, more a socialist.
I want the railways re-nationalised and am a campaigner for decent public transport (Tory policy is usually just invest in roads, public transport is for the poor and who cares about them!)
I am also pro living wage, anti privatisation of the NHS, pro union, and I don't believe in trickle down politics.

So economically, I feel the less powerful need certain protections, as those at the top will never have their interests at heart.
Having said that I would like to see less red tape for small independent businesses, and for it to be made easier for them to thrive (by making Costafication of local high streets harder..)
So.. we probably have little in common politically, BUT the self id issue is a completely cross party issue that affects all women and we need to join forces to beat it.
I'm also politically homeless now, as I will never vote for Corbyn and his gang of women hating bullies.

Regarding the "care" for the elderly on the Tory Manifesto:
It looks like tory voters didn't like it.

Rich voters across all parties didn't like it actually (unsurprisingly).
Regardless - it was a policy suggested by the Tory party, and it was a good one - more of your wealth protected and your house saved from compulsory sale until any other family residing there had also gone.
Less well off people were protected, and middle-wealth people would have benefitted too - only the wealthier people would have been progressively worse off than the existing policy.

Still not sure how that proposal addresses the issue of women being the ones who are also left holding the elder relative.

As far as I'm concerned, that's entirely within an individual's own control - it's not mandated that 'women must do that'.

I wasn't arguing that different professions should be paid the same. I was pointing out that whereas men and women may be paid the same in the same profession, professions with female majorities tend to be paid less (be less valued) than male majority professions.

Well the suggestion was that the Tories need to do something about equal pay for equal work. You're talking about a whole different order of societal control if you're laying the above at their door. If women are free to choose their career then the above doesn't matter. And if they're not, then you're looking in the wrong place to fix it.

s18.postimg.org/6lv512xc9/women_in_stem.jpg

I wasn't arguing either that career gaps or part time should be considered as equal to continued or full time work. But, overall, they contribute towards the pay gap between men and women, even if strictly, there is equal pay for equal jobs.

Again then, this isn't a question of the Tories not having brought in equal pay legislation. I'm not sure what you expect the government to do about women having children. Stop it?

The rest is naive. Employers can easily argue cases for "different jobs", and it's fairly easy to support men over women in some jobs.

It's not naive. Listen, if I could cut my salary costs by only employing women don't you think I would? Do you think all these greedy capitalists you're picturing wouldn't say "Hey, I have to pay women less - hire more women!" Again, it's a matter for the courts on a case by case basis. What possible solution is there that changes that and is fair? Have the government produce a master list of 40,000 jobs and set national standard salaries? If you think you're being discriminated against either take it to court or threaten to leave. Either you're worth your salary or you're not and if the sole difference is your sex then a business will pay equally for equal value. To do otherwise is to lose money.

Then how many employees find it easy to get to court, or even question their employer about salaries? As you said, it has to be case by case, in court, so it's incredibly difficult to enforce simply by law.

It's literally one email invoking the 2010 Equalities Act. As I've already said. That begins the process. Hopefully (and usually) it will be resolved long before it gets to court. No company wants to go through an Equal Pay audit. If you have a genuine case it's overwhelmingly in the employer's interests to settle it before it goes further. IF you have a genuine case.

Equal pay for the same work by law certainly does not translate into no pay gap.

Nor should it.

And if you think a different outcome is ok, I'd ask why? Don't you think that the population should be fairly represented in Parliament?

I think it should be based on who the populace elect. Anything else is not democracy. Men and Women are not different species. I don't feel less represented by Theresa May than I did Cameron. Women are 51% of the population. If they want to vote for a male candidate, that's their choice. Just as if I want to vote for a female candidate that's mine.

Do you think men are good representatives of women?

It depends. Lily Madigan... not so much.

But again, the populace elects who it chooses. What better system is there? Some sort of bicameral system with a House for Women and a House for Men? Some sort of restrictions on who you can vote for? None of this sounds like an improvement to me.

Scandinavian countries have social democracy. Which is not all out capitalism. Nor all out socialism.

Scandinavian countries do not have "Social Democracy". They have free market capitalism with high taxes. Socialism is state ownership, not high taxes.

But here comes the question again. What has the right done to change men's behaviour?

What behaviour of men do you think it's the government's business to change? And what powers do you want to give our government that would enable it to do so? Sounds very authoritarian and sinister to me. We've already got them making calling a man "he" an imprisonable offence!

Regarding the "care" for the elderly on the Tory Manifesto:
It looks like tory voters didn't like it.
From the Telegraph itself.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/22/theresa-may-pressure-say-will-pay-social-care-u-turn-dementia/

Still not sure how that proposal addresses the issue of women being the ones who are also left holding the elder relative.

Checking in
I’m actually politically homeless at the moment as I’m struggling to support the Tories due to Brexit.
I loathe Labour and Jeremy Corbin/momentum and think that they are the most dangerous thing to happen politically for a long time.
I actually voted Lib at the last election but mostly because I personally knew our local Lib candidate and he’s great ( didn’t win unfortunately)
The fact that Feminism seems to only belong to left wing women riles me though, you can be Right leaning and not an evil baby eater who wants to confine women to the kitchen so thank you for starting the thread

So did WWI and WWII.
It's kind of sad to see what it takes for women to become relevant in the workforce.

Still, it begs the question of why those men wouldn't (couldn't?) find the same jobs that their wives got.

Just as an aside - I've heard it argued that Thatcher's decimation of the mining industry and other assaults on the working classes meant that a significant number of women went out to work because the men couldn't get jobs. So it subverted the traditional model and women started becoming the financial providers.

TM did propose a pretty progressive idea in the manifesto for those who require nursing homes but was undermined by the left

I was under the impression she had parliamentary majority.
What was so great about her proposal?

No, I wouldn't consider communism the same as national socialism. Even though communist regimes have been brutal and damaging in many ways, the ideology itself is not comparable. And having experience of a communist party in local government and enabling a left wing government, I really wouldn't compare the far right with the far left.
But thank God they were never able to be in power here.

To be honest I would take communist party membership to be as objectionable as nazi party membership. Communism killed off far more in the 20th century than fascism, and in fact the far right and the far left are essentially the same thing: Namely totalitarian regimes that are collectivist in nature and inflict unimaginable horrors on their own populations in the name of some greater good.

Wrt caring for the elderly, TM did propose a pretty progressive idea in the manifesto for those who require nursing homes but was undermined by the left of all things - and inflammatory headlines that misrepresented the proposal.

To be fair though, the poor interpretation was TM's fault as it wasn't briefed at all to her party & when it was briefed it was done in a muddled way.

Oh, and care for the elderly. Guess who tends to fall on? What marvellous caring for the elderly has the right put in place?

(Ups, sorry, not all of us single women with children need state help. Or any man's help, for that matter )

And what are we to do while men's behaviour doesn't change? Let single women with children starve?

I wouldn't be a member of the communist party, but I do know people who are and they're good people. Not demons. We just have different ideas about what's best for society.

For me communism is on the same level as pure capitalism. Some interesting ideas, hopefully never in power.

I prefer the middle. Somewhat leaning left.

surely that is due to the way men behave. The answer is to change that, not shrug our shoulders

Who's shrugging shoulders?

Yes, therein lies the problem. Hence feminism. :)

But here comes the question again. What has the right done to change men's behaviour?

Ps you might want to look a bit at the actual history of communism before concluding that being a member of the communist party is perfectly ok.
Even for mumsnet, that’s a pretty out there statement.