Women don’t feel safe with Starmer's Labour

Also, a society where women can be as equally free in their choices, and rewarded for it, as men is not a "crazy place".

The status quo damages women.

The assumption that all adults should be in paid work is where this goes wrong, I think, rather than women should be in paid work plus. It's an unsustainable system, and pushing women to emulate men's "privileged" position as people working for others who own the means of production doesn't get anyone anywhere - except the people who own the means of production, it's quite good for them.
I agree. But the only way out of that is for men to step out of their position and take on care and they won't do it. Look at what's happened with shared parental leave. Men don't take it up.

one end of labour are as described “brigades of woke social media warriors”, and the other end are a bunch of misogynistic dinosaurs who want to drag us back into a Marxist hell.

Where the fuck are the sensible people?

I agree that there are real questions about things like eldercare and childcare, but I can't say that I think the LPs approach of monetisation of these things and state subsidies is very good either. We can see quite clearly through this pandemic that large systems are vulnerable, that in the end the teachers in school or care home workers are not going to risk everything to take care of other people's kids and elders, and the state can't make them. And there has been some disturbing revelation to many people about the quality of care in many of these places as well.

The assumption that all adults should be in paid work is where this goes wrong, I think, rather than women should be in paid work plus. It's an unsustainable system, and pushing women to emulate men's "privileged" position as people working for others who own the means of production doesn't get anyone anywhere - except the people who own the means of production, it's quite good for them.

At the moment, neither party offers anything deeply different, the mainstreams of both are owned by globalist capitalists and liberals. Both sides also have an element that is not so mainstream - the traditional left and traditional conservatives, both of which challenge that status quo, and both represent viewpoints with a fair bit in common which at the moment don't have lot of representation politically. However, the LP has theirs quite suppressed at the moment, whereas the CP is allowing their some light because, I suspect, they know it appeals to the Old Labour voters. In both cases I think the result is very much in the balance at this time, and probably is a worldwide question rather than just a UK one.

But more immediately, when you have actual Labour MPs who tell you to get out of the party they don't want your vote and seem to really believe crazy things like Nandy does, and actual Conservative MPs who understand the problem and are committed to fighting for women, it seems a bit odd to say the LP wants to smash the patriarchy and the CP wants to keep it. Which political figures do women who are looking for representation find they can approach and get sympathy?

I’m a life long Labour supporter and voter. Have up my membership last year over this issue. I know a LOT of women who did not vote for them in may elections due to their position on women and what that means and what rights and protections we have. I don’t think this can even be spoken about at the moment. Makes me sick to my stomach.

But to repeat myself - it's clear looking at the history of political parties that they do not have this unchanging list of set beliefs that never change. They change and in some cases quite radically, free trade is a good example with the Conservatives, there was a time when they were deeply opposed to it, more recently in the late 20th century they supported it, now there seems to be some stepping away from being quite so attached to it.

The Labour Party, being younger, has had fewer of these kinds of developments, but nonetheless they have had some real changes in perspective over time.

For people who feel that they have been left behind, or the party isn't what it was, or they would never vote for some other particular party, it is worth remembering that this is not new. Parties change perspectives and over time it may be that they change in such a way that we may choose to vote differently, or alternately we might choose even to join another party or even a newly made party, and look to influence their policies in some direction that we think makes sense for them. There has never been some kind of guarantee that the LP would be the saviour of workers or the the Conservatives would want to give them a kick.

Now - if people want to take the time to look carefully at the history of the CP and the LP, that too could be useful and they will find that historically they have commonalities that go some way to explaining why working class people might abandon the LP for the CP. Because both the LP and CP tended to oppose liberalism and the LP at one time, and the mainstream of both parties have now been colonised by liberals even while the party is no longer really a player. So it becomes a question of which are liberal in the ways you find least annoying or opposed to your interests, and for some, it's the liberalism of the CP.

But that is not what I was saying in my post - I was talking about feelings around loyalty.

I don't like the Labour Party. They don't represent the working class or even working people. Its all about Angela Raynor types. Or Islington Champagne socialists who are just as bad.

I can't find the original tweet but someone said this on twitter a while back and it's really stuck with me:
To suggest feminists who call out leftwing bullshit are therefore in support of rightwing bullshit is to vastly underestimate how much bullshit there is
Personally, I've had enough of Labour's bullshit and that's why I resigned my membership. That doesn't mean I'm suddenly a cheerleader for Tory bullshit. That's not the way it works.

It's one thing to try to fight a hierarchy as the disadvantaged class, as women are forced to do in a patriarchy. It's another thing entirely to have the dominant class (biological males, however they identify), demanding the right to define the disadvantaged class, and to be considered part of it at will - even to the point of reframing the disadvantaged class (biological females) as the oppressor of part of the dominant class (biological males who self-ID as women).

Imagine how the civil rights battle in America would have gone if, instead of simply trying to continue to treat black people as an underclass, white Americans had instead claimed to believe that they were black and that people who were actually born black were privileged over white people who identified as black.

I hear people make statements like the CP wants women to stay in their box, and I expect some might, but plenty of people here have shared stories of their MPs who were very concerned about women's rights, and there are a few prominent Conservative figures who have done a lot of work on behalf of women. I'm not sure how that translates to "the CP hates women."
The Conservative party is not interested in breaking down the patriarchy. It actively pursues policies that maintain the patriarchy. The whole point of the patriarchy is that it is an insidious subconscious system that benefits men at the cost of women.

So for example the conservatives are constantly looking for ways to reward "family" for social care. Now we all know that "family" means women. Women who are already likely to have children and be working, and doing the majority of housework (statistics).

Clearly that disproportionately impacts women who have a "choice" to ignore societal pressure to look after family; take on more work at home and a consequent hit on their career and earning potential or give up work and be financially dependent on someone else and potentially disparaged for being "on benefits". None of those are good choices for women.

Whereas for the men? They can opt out of the whole thing because society/party policies support them being "the breadwinner". There is no downside of the new policies to them really, only an upside of not having to pay tax to cover social care.

Framing what the Conservatives do as "hating women" is the same way as feminists don't "hate men". Inaccurate and unhelpful. Their policies and approach do damage women as a class though, and so I won't vote for thwm

'I think it actually helps if you take a longer view of political parties. And by longer, I mean, since they've been around.'

You really did.

You really expect people to consider all of that, the historical context, social norms of the time, economic situation, wars etc etc before they come to an opinion?

Well, I didn't say that, so...

I don't think you could have summarised more effectively the attitude of the current Labour party. Kudos.

Yup, one of the main problems in a nutshell, well demonstrated.

Am yet another who is currently politically homeless, after lifelong Labour voting. And no, that does not mean I am a Tory supporter. Torys are no friends f women either, however, noone is currently. Not even the fucking WEP. Sorry state of affairs.

SelfID is also potentially my priority voting issue right now (yes, despite being long term disabled, which is a fucker to start with but the Tories are my enemy on that really more than anyone). As in my mind, it undoes a hundred years of progress for women in one swoop, and would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to undo.

I supported Labour all my life, that is until the Jay Report (Rotherham), and I know I'm not the only one around here, in the former Red Wall, who did this.

They called Anne Cryer a racist, forced Sarah Champion to resign, both strong northern women MPs, who tried to raise awareness of serious gang crime issues in the north.

The LP can now go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned.

The conservative party (note still called the Tories):

'The Conservative Party was founded in 1834 from the Tory Party and was one of two dominant political parties in the 19th century, along with the Liberal Party. Under Benjamin Disraeli, it played a preeminent role in politics at the height of the British Empire.'

The modern Labour party:

'The party was founded in 1900, having grown out of the trade union movement and socialist parties of the 19th century. It overtook the Liberal Party to become the main opposition to the Conservative Party in the early 1920s, forming two minority governments under Ramsay MacDonald in the 1920s and early 1930s'

You really expect people to consider all of that, the historical context, social norms of the time, economic situation, wars etc etc before they come to an opinion?

'The Whigs were a political faction and then a political party in the parliaments of England, Scotland, Great Britain, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Between the 1680s and 1850s, the Whigs contested power with their rivals, the Tories. The Whigs merged into the new Liberal Party in the 1850s, though some Whig aristocrats left the Liberal Party in 1885 to form the Liberal Unionist Party, which merged into the Liberals' rival, the modern day Conservative Party, in 1912.'

When you say long view....?!

I think it actually helps if you take a longer view of political parties. And by longer, I mean, since they've been around.

The Conservative Party is in some ways more instructive just because it's so much older than the LP. It's had more than one really different incarnation and changed some of it's beliefs at a pretty deep level over the years. It's had PMs who took very different approaches to politics, and life (and the nice ones weren't necessarily the ones that accomplished the most.) Maybe there is something that held these ideas together, but many ideas that people think of as being typically CP ideas - say free trade - have not always been what they think. They have changed ideas in the past and will change again.

The LP is relatively young, but I think it's unlikely it will prove to be less changeable over time.

So maybe parties should never be given a certain kind of loyalty, and we should also never make assumptions that what they think at one moment is what they will think for all time. I hear people make statements like the CP wants women to stay in their box, and I expect some might, but plenty of people here have shared stories of their MPs who were very concerned about women's rights, and there are a few prominent Conservative figures who have done a lot of work on behalf of women. I'm not sure how that translates to "the CP hates women."

I identify as a roller.

ArtichokeLeaves

Good point about the 'special pets'. Used to be the working class, now ethnic (and sexual?) minorities.

What's next? The left-handed? Gingers? People who can't roll their tongue?

And Lynne featherstone was minister of equalities and signed off the transgender action plan in 2011

As PP have pointed out, this has been a long game. Having the entirely captured Lib Dem’s in a coalition government was a dream come true

Coalition comes into power in 2010 & a few months later. Helen belcher TW & Lib Dem activist sets up Trans media watch as a charity

The Lib Dems would have worked with and influenced a number of key people in Parliament and the civil service so even when they were no longer in Government, the seeds that they planted flourished.

Former Lib Dem minister in the coalition Lynn Featherstone famously said Feminists weren't welcome in Lib Dems unless they support gender neutral toilets.

Option A: quite shit
Option B: totally shit

Labour seem perplexed that women prefer Option A.