Feminism chat for right wingers

Mylovelyhorse is right.
If women are left holding the baby, this less able to avail themselves of the opportunities capitalism affords, surely that is due to the way men behave. The answer is to change that, not shrug our shoulders and say it will never change and the position that women are inevitably more dependent on state support is fixed in stone.

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

A free market works well for the society because it's cushioned off by high taxes and good social support.

What we are seeing with current western capitalism is increased salary gaps between the top and the bottom jobs. Such inequality is likely to drive social instability. But the top earners have been able to find scapegoats. Mostly immigrants. Instead of greed (see last economic crisis).

Someways my opinions may differ from the left is that I wasn’t against gridgirls - in fact I would like to see grid men too!

I wasn't aware that the existence of gridgirls was a political issue. Was it in the Labour manifesto?

And if you'd like to see grid men too, isn't that an equality proposition? And one that feminists may well agree to? How is that a right wing position?

It's not a good answer, actually.

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.

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.

BTW, I know a few excellent people who are paying members of the Communist Party. Even politically active. There are much worse things to be.

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. Think of the networking and bonding at the pub, not to mention strip clubs, in some professions. It's still not easy for women to participate in those. Women still find it more difficult to put on the extra hours that some jobs require.

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.

Equal pay for the same work by law certainly does not translate into no pay gap.
And equal opportunities on paper doesn't translate either on equal outcome. And I mean overall.

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? Why is there a male majority when half the population is female? Do you think men are good representatives of women?

For a start, salaries are often not publicly known in private companies. Then there's the problem of the definition of equal work.
Then there's how different professions are valued. And why it's women who tend to work part time and have career gaps.

Well if you're arguing that it's wrong for different professions to be differently valued, you might as well be a paid up member of the Communist party. Arguing that career gaps and part time work shouldn't make a difference is contradicting your own statements that it's equal work and starting to argue something quite different which is that unequal work should be paid the same. Again, I refer you to your local communist cell.

The problem of definition of equal work is a case by case basis for the courts. It is not possible to usefully enshrine definitions of work in law to a level that would resolve this.

Finally, you're demanding that all salaries must be public. That brings a number of problems and is also unnecessary. Under the Equality Act of 2010 any employee may approach their employer on the basis of suspected inequality and the employer is required to respond. If the response is not to the employee's satisfaction they can file a grievance or apply directly to an employment tribunal. There are also provisions for triggering an Equal Pay audit.

Now, I believe you've received a good answer so I'm going to bed. Goodnight, all! .

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

In Scandinavian countries the means of production is overwhelmingly privately owned rather than the State. The so-called "Nordic model" IS free-market capitalism. High vs. low taxes is a different axis to privately owned vs. publicly owned. In some ways Sweden is even more capitalist than countries like the UK. For example private for-profit schools that parents can use state education vouchers to pay fees with. If you consider Capitalism to be an opposite spectrum end to Socialism (which is reasonable) then Scandinavian countries are more capitalist than socialist.

Besides, the contention was that it was hard to imagine anything more patriarchal than free-market capitalism. I listed four systems that exist in the world today that are massively more patriarchal than any capitalist nation so the point is proved.

Also we shouldn't oversimplify and compare say Norway and the USA when there massive social and cultural and historical differences between the two. It's not comparing like for like to attribute sexual equality differences to "capitalism".

Finally, Sweden has seen a massive influx of Islamic immigration in recent years with areas like Husby where women have to be very careful about how they dress, where they can go etc. so the countries have become a great deal more patriarchal than you might be aware of.

The wage gap issue is more than having laws requiring equal pay for the same work.

For a start, salaries are often not publicly known in private companies. Then there's the problem of the definition of equal work.
Then there's how different professions are valued. And why it's women who tend to work part time and have career gaps.

So, yes, naive.

Interestingly, Equal Pay Act 1970, passed under Labour Government.
Superceded by Equality Act 2010, passed again under Labour Government.

Curiously, both not long before general elections won by Conservatives.

Or you could look at it as dependant children being reliant on the mother who is present and not the father who is absent.

It depends how you frame things.

Let's look at who the all-important children can and do rely on. And how the absent parents get away with it. What would we say these ambient parents tend to have in common? You know, just take a stab.

If it's a matter of improving wages and female earning power, then what are the Tories doing to make sure male and female earnings are the same for the same jobs?

This is already law. It is literally illegal to pay people differently based on their sex.

And whilst I can already hear people starting to type replies of a "how naive" nature, there's a lot of misinformation spread around wage gaps. If you have an actual example of unequal pay for the same work based on sex you can bring this to court. And that happens.

Two laws that say the same thing brings no advantage.

By that I mean, women's dependence on men being replaced by dependence on the state

@CritEqual I hadn't thought about it in that way before. You have a point.

Modern Capitalist nations are some of the least patriarchal nations you can find

There are no pure money economies. They are always embedded to some degree in social obligations and social relations.

Yes.

Which nations are those?

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

The US is much more capitalist by comparison and I wouldn't say they are doing much better for women. On the contrary.

If it's a matter of improving wages and female earning power, then what are the Tories doing to make sure male and female earnings are the same for the same jobs?

Equal opportunity is often a fallacy. It's difficult to have equal opportunities when women are criticised for having similar behaviours to men. Or when they get pregnant, while men can't.

How are equal opportunities measured? By equal outcome, even if there are differences in different fields, they should cancel each other out.
So, while there is no equal outcome, you can't say there are equal opportunities. You may have been able to push forward as a woman and get quite far, but you should also ask youself why not enough other women aren't doing the same.

Modern Capitalist nations are some of the least patriarchal nations you can find

There are no pure money economies. They are always embedded to some degree in social obligations and social relations. As any fule kno.

But wages aren't improving. Child care support is getting worse and costs more.

Women whose husbands piss off are actually seriously rescued by the tax credit system.

Or they were. And their children.

Because HMRC will go after a Look North presenter for half a million, but not half a million men for child support avoidance.

I can think of nothing more patriarchal than the ideology of free market capitalism.

May I introduce you to Islamic Theocracies and Islamic Monarchies? And for Western and Eastern examples, the Nazis and Communists (Soviet and Chinese) both of whom placed great emphasis on traditional gender roles.

Modern Capitalist nations are some of the least patriarchal nations you can find. Money is what matters.

I'd agree crony capitalism is the devil's own asshole, and in fact has this unholy relationship to socialism. It drives down wages and increases the power of the state wether it's left or right that's in power.

Where I think leftist feminism is dangerous is where it breeds such a blinkered one dimensional view. Sure you have a wage gap which would do well to close, but hand in hand with that is the gender tax gap whereby women take more out in welfare relative to men who are commensurately taxed more in aggregate. This creates an own goal where resentment amongst men drives a desire to roll back women's rights.

All that has essentially happened is that many women have replaced dependence on a man to dependence on the state, and given that we're still talking a state that is still overwhelmingly male you are quite literally as a left wing feminist propping up a patriarchy and everything else is ultimately just piddling around in the margins.

*Working families tax credit? How?

And what about the women whose work isn't enough to pay for child care? Starve?

What do you think is better for women?*

Tax credits created a trap, whereby you were often worse off working than not, or keeping the working hours down.

Women who's work isn't enough for childcare - of course I don't think they should starve - there should be better childcare support, but also wages need to improve.

For as long as the govt are subsidising wages via tax credits then the trap continues.

We all need to put the politics to one side. Our definition as female, you know the ones who bleed, give birth, left with the childcare responsibilities and all the rest of it, could be ignored!

I expect the terms are familiar but if not, the Equality of Opportunity attitude would be something like "Women must have just as much opportunity of becoming an MP as men." And the Equality of Outcome counterpart would be: "MPs must be equal numbers of women as men."

I agree - that's a good way of explaining it Oldman.

I identify with Equality of Opportunity more than Equality of Outcome.

Wrt policies which damage women, I think the tax credit scheme was damaging to women as it created a welfare trap.

Working families tax credit? How?

And what about the women whose work isn't enough to pay for child care? Starve?

What do you think is better for women?

I'm dropping in to listen.

I went the opposite direction to you in that I went from calling myself a Feminist (up until a couple of years ago) to no longer doing so (when I felt the name had been so far subverted by some people that I could no longer use it). I do identify as Right Wing (primarily economically, somewhat socially).

I'd say the biggest difference it might make is that if you're Right Wing you're more likely to focus on Equality of Opportunity than Equality of Outcome. Whereas the Left tend to be the other way around.

I expect the terms are familiar but if not, the Equality of Opportunity attitude would be something like "Women must have just as much opportunity of becoming an MP as men." And the Equality of Outcome counterpart would be: "MPs must be equal numbers of women as men."

I don't like the latter. I think it's Identity Politics and actively destructive to impose that kind of top-down approach. But it's a good illustration of where I think some people find Right Wing and Feminist to be in conflict. Right Wing feminism tends to be very old school. It's all about individual rights and eliminating discrimination. Left Wing feminism (and I'm about to betray my bias but at least I acknowledge it) tends to be the more 3rd Wave 'my team must have equal power'. It's individualistic vs. group, essentially. And as someone who finds sex rather arbitrary (the category, not the fun stuff. ) and less defining of who we are than our individual choices, I naturally lean heavily towards the former.

As modern 3rd Wave Feminism has become almost entirely slanted towards the latter I felt I could no longer use the term for myself.