Conservative leadership bids - Maternity pay comments

and teachers cannot be forced into hiding because they showed an image of the Prophet Mohammed during a religious studies lesson.

This has happened though hasn’t it? This isn’t British culture but it is present here in the UK.

Of course cultures are valid in and of themselves, but when it comes to cultural integration - which is required for stable and cohesive society - then some cultures are just not as acceptable as others . Multi-culturalism cannot work when some of those cultures go against the host culture. Multi ethnicity is different to multi-culturalism. Culture is about practices, laws and so on - not just about different food dishes and clothing styles. Ethnicity is more about origins.

In British culture, women's rights and protections are honoured ( just about.... still) and guaranteeed in law. There is no legal right to rape in marriage as in some cultures, and girls cannot be subject to genital mutilation. Wives have equal rights when it comes to divorce and access to children and so on.......

Female teachers have as much authority as male teachers.....and so it is not acceptable for a father of a pupil to refuse to speak with the female teacher, and so on......and teachers cannot be forced into hiding because they showed an image of the Prophet Mohammed during a religious studies lesson.

Looking forward, there seems now to be no guarantee of future generations receiving a state pension ( even Labour have floated the idea that in future the state pension may have to be means tested) - unless people start taking out additional savings. Maybe this is where maternity pay will end up too.....a bit like with health insurance. Something you have to factor in yourself..

I think what she was trying to say was that maternity pay is funded by general taxation - and with more and more women working full time the burden of maternity pay falls on the tax payer. So, in order to fund maternity pay either taxes have to go up - or else people have to take more personal responsibility for accumulating/building up their own insurance/pension/maternity pot.

Sounds pretty consistent with a conservative economic ideology.

On the culture thing, not all cultures are equally valid though, afghanistan for example, fucking appalling to women and girls. I don’t think thats valid at all. If someone said to me it is equally valid as a country that provides equal rights to women I’d think they are insane.

Even if she had infact said that I would have disagreed strongly with the position but I don’t think we should have things we can’t say or talk about. My understanding was that she was talking about regulations on small businesses. I think maternity pay should go up. If you want working women to have kids it has to be more financially feasible.

She's saying both. She's a small state Tory. Which means she believes in less regulation, fewer workers' rights etc. because these are constraints on competition and profits.

OK. Badenoch has said she thinks that the way Labour have cut WFA from the very poorest of pensioners is wrong (even though she does agree it should be means tested). There are other ways of means testing that wouldn't leave the most vulnerable cold this winter. Martin Lewis has outlined how this could be done.

To make money from this policy Labour are counting on the fact that the 800,000 pensioners entitled to PC won't make a claim. If all of them claimed the saving by cutting WFA would be wiped out. They know who will be most affected by this policy and they don't care.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-kemi-badenoch-blasts-cost-27460465.amp

🤔

Maybe we can talk about what Badenoch thinks...on a thread about Badenoch

I'm sorry. It's shit.

Do you have anything to say about Badenochs comments on NMW? In fact her comments generally would suggest she'd be in favour of scrapping winter fuel allowance as she doesn't think the tax payer should be funding these things.

I think you've misunderstood what they've said.
They've said they won't update the EqA but will update the GRA. 2 methods of achieving the same goal of making it clear that woman = adult human female for sex based exemptions in the EA.

Unless I've missed something in which case please provide a link. I don't think I have because I've been round this loop lots in the run up to the election. This is why I'm saying I don't want to bicker about meanings.

I think your point was missed because you are obfuscating it.

You appear to be lumping GC-feminists (feminists who do not include men in their feminism and feel the biological reality of womanhood is central to their experience, rights and political/social/legal needs) together with people whose motivations centre around preserving gendered roles for biological women because of internalised or cultural misogyny.

These may include conservative far right individuals whose concern for women’s rights are entirely linked into engendered and regressive social stereotypes that, ironically, many gender ideologues are also attuned to. The people you seem to be referring to as ‘GC feminists’ might encompass (for example) right wing, conservative Christians who do not support women’s reproductive rights or bodily autonomy and proliferate the so-called ‘women’s rights’ movement across the pond, but are evident at a much smaller degree over here. People that GC feminists are deeply and utterly opposed to.

People/women who do not support all of the rights you listed are NOT ‘GC feminists’, they are misogynistic dinosaurs piggy-backing a movement that is about women (not men), but have an entirely different agenda and motivations. But equally, people who do actually support those things cannot in reality fight for those things whilst at the same time insisting that men who identify as women are included within the definition of ‘woman’ for feminist purposes.

There are millions who are just above the threshold - such as my father - who will miss it; for whom it makes their life just that bit easier, especially with fuel bills about to go up yet again.

WFA is £200 IN A YEAR. Most people in receipt of it aren't going to notice. The very poorest pensioners are keeping it.

There are around 800,000 pensioners who are eligible for PC but have not claimed it who will have their WFA removed. These are the very poorest pensioners and very likely the most vulnerable of that group. They are also disproportionately women. For some of those 800,000 £200 will be the difference between keeping warm and freezing.

No; a variety of Labour MPs, including Starmer, have said on more than one occasion that they do not intend to make the definition of sex any clearer.

I feel you missed my point

Utter Rubbish - a GC feminist would support all of those things. I do. Yes. Im saying all feminists support those things, including ones who believe TWAW.

A number of people calling themselves GC are not feminist, and do not support those things. The last government, that Badenoch was member of, did nothing about those things. That's because they weren't feminists.

WFA is £200 IN A YEAR. Most people in receipt of it aren't going to notice. The very poorest pensioners are keeping it.
There is an argument to be made for moving the threshold up. But it's getting a disproportionate amount of airtime compared to, say, the Conservatives cuts to universal credit.

Meanwhile Badenoch (who the thread is about incidentally) thinks businesses can't afford NMW. If NMW gets cut, how much per year do you think that will cost women?

Can't quite believe this post.

Winter Fuel Allowance does protect women. Women will be disproportionately affected by it's removal because there are significantly more older women than older men. And those women most negatively affected will also be the most vulnerable of that cohort because for whatever reason they have not claimed the Pension Credit to which they are entitled. This will include those who have dementia, those who are not literate, those who have nobody to help them navigate the benefit system and those who are simply too proud to claim. Not to mention those whose income is £1 over the eligibility threshold. We've known for years that austerity disproportionately affects women and this is what this policy will do.

Utter Rubbish - a GC feminist would support all of those things. I do.

Kemi Badenoch does not speak for ALL or even most feminists, just a handful of rightwing ones. I agree with her on some issues and diverge on many others.

However, I simply do not feel that feminism includes men, however they identify. I do feel that so-called feminists that include such men in the definition of women are not actually feminists because, central to supporting the issues outlines above, is the essential fact that women have uteruses, female endocrine systems and thus female specific issues that impact their lives which men with testicles and penis do not.

Anything to say about Badenoch's NMW comments?

Why do you always assume that conversations are about you?
Mainly because I keep getting misrepresented so I'm taking care to keep everything very clear.

Why do you think a government or a political party would resist making definitions clear in law?
I have no idea why the Tories didn't do it; Labour have only been in power for 3 months, more than half of which has been parliamentary recess. So it's premature to say they are "resisting" at the moment. I suspect they have other priorities like the budget.

Why do you always assume that conversations are about you?

You are not a law or policy maker are you? Why do you think a government or a political party would resist making definitions clear in law?

The correct legal terminology is not 'safe spaces' but single sex spaces. You'd think a lawyer would get that right, wouldn't you? Implicit in this fudge is the idea that men with certicates with female markers ( which they are making far easier to obtain) will be permitted access to some spaces which are single sex - such as toilets and changing rooms.

Furthermore, the message from the Labour benches is not consistent at all. Some say that "each case of admittance to female spaces must be judged on its own merits", and alongside this a continuing refusal to clarify that sex refers to biological sex - means that any man with a certificate is now legally 'a woman'.

This implies that some men are now legally women. If you cannot adequately describe what a woman is and enshrine that in law - then some men get included in the definition. This is all pure Stonewall - who have been driving the Labour party for years when it comes to isues around women's sex based protections. The aim was originally to have 'Sex' removed altogether from the Equalities act to be replaced entirely with 'Gender'

OK.
I'm not "resisting a definition". I'm saying there is plenty that can still be done in lieu of a definition.

I'm really not wanting a debate where my position is strawmanned and misrepresentation to prove whatever point you want to make. Badenoch abjectly failed to change the definition in the 15 months she had to do it, so now we are where we are with Labour.