Reasons for not moving right like young men

Pimps as “sex workers” - yuck. And no, the religious right wouldn’t like that at all. But what ties them together to hardline liberals like Cato, in the US at least, is the insistence on a small state. Rugged individualism is the glue that holds America together.

Which, of course, is also why - despite their deep ideological differences - both camps are equally offended when women presume to speak for themselves. Neither the small state nor the big church have been a friend to women.

The very concept of leadership is suggestive of someone who takes command of a situation and directs it ( coded masculine). What might a 'feminine' leadership style look like?

Facilitating a sharing circle? At some point a decision and an action has to be taken, and this can not always be done by a committee. I guess some people might be more attuned to a collaborative style where everyone's view is listened to - but at some point a decisive action or a decision must still be made.

The right's platforming of women & minorities who are willing to confirm their talking points is particularly effective in terms of role model persuasion & guilt assuagement. The right's weaponisation of such individuals not only provides cover for racism, sexism & homophobia by getting non white, straight, males or females to more convincingly do their dirty work but right leaners can 'sleep easier' with the comfort of knowing 'representatives' of women & minorities agree with them. In other words, their elevation simply performs as a vehicle to maintain the hierarchal status quo.

I do partly agree with this (' Maybe because they are women who display more obvious' masculine' characteristics and have leadership qualities' but can I ask : would you then argue that good leadership qualities can only be traditionally masculine ones? Surely some are, I would agree on that.

Aha, that makes sense. I don't know much about Clark but I like the little I do know of her.

Good point: Arguably Nordic values typically don't frame 'girlboss'/lean in style roles as ideal for either sex. The Law of Jante & similar fit into this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LawofJante

As you note, they astutely framed pro-woman reforms as pro-family. The downside is that this didn't do enough to tackle DV and SA more generally, as they note in the articles, but hopefully this is changing.

I would note though that trad conservatives aren't a monolith. Some welcome more state support for families at least to some extent. And the libertarians at Cato are really not trad conservatives socially at least. In fact they arguably live up to the worst stereotypes of libertarians (that they're a bunch of privileged mainly men who want to do whatever they want) when they profile people like the pimp Maggie mcNeill approvingly as advocates of 'sex work is work'.

The Nordics present trad conservatives with a problem. It’s hard to dismiss state provision of childcare as a dire threat to the family, the economy, Western civilisation and so on when the entire Nordic bloc seems to be doing pretty well. In fact, on metrics of productivity and growth, they’re out-performing the rest of Europe.

This, in turn, leaves conservatives with a choice. See the failure of their own model, or find a way to frame the Nordics as failures.

By measuring Scandi economies against solidly American values - the proportion of women in private-sector, big-boss, top-earning positions - the folks at Cato have made a heroic attempt at the latter.

Predictably perhaps, the Nordics perform badly against this metric. Which most Scandinavians, male and female, would welcome. Their whole economies are engineered to prevent the dominance of a tiny rich elite.

So what if Norway hasn’t produced a caste of power-babes? No Norwegian woman has to choose between a job or a family. That’s a far better outcome than the position here, or in the US.

Sorry to change topic, but Re DV, this is true re Denmark and disturbing. Why ?

It's true for other Nordic countries too.

Some theories as to why : ' This is a result of the paradox of gender equality as manifest in the post-WWII welfare state building project, according to Suvi Ronkainen, a professor at the University of Lapland whose research has focused on sexual violence.

“We do not do open feminist politics,” Ronkainen told openDemocracy 50.50. “Our welfare state wasn’t an open feminist project. It wasn’t even a project for the affirm women’s rights, it was part of nation building.” Ronkainen stresses that any policy development like free daycare, or even abortion, is presented to the family as “pro-family,” rather than pro-women.“Our political arena and the practices within each are such that if you want to do something that could be called good for women, it has to be presented as something that is good for others.”

Women’s equal rights are protected in the public sphere but not in the private sphere, says Paivi Naskali, a professor of Gender Studies at the University of Lapland. “The welfare state has given many rights to women, but this policy has concentrated on the labor market and womens’ ability to participate in working market, not equality in private life,” she said.

As a result, mediation, rather than the judicial system, is still considered the best means of coping with domestic violence. '

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/finlands-paradox-of-equality-professional-excellence-domestic-abuse/

https://europeancorrespondent.com/en/r/whats-behind-the-nordic-paradox

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795361630140X

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08974454.2021.1905588#d1e1025

Apparently, despite high happiness and wellbeing rankings, Denmark also has high drinking rates and Norway a significant drug (esp ketamine) problem in some areas, so that may be part of it.

That's a good point. There's still issues in Norway but the welfare state also enables women to take on those kinds of jobs.
Cato Institue of course has a strongly libertarian ethos so that effects their views on Nordic countries.

Also Nordic societies tend to be slightly. flatter in terms of pay etc and have a strong welfare state. They aren't completely equal, there are a lot of billionaires but it's seen as cards to talk about how much you earn etc. Therefore you can choose a job that would be lower status/lower paid with fucking your life or your children's lives up. Mysteriously lower paid or lower status jobs tend to be the ones associated with women. So women have the freedom to choose more stereotypically female roles if they want.

In countries where life is tougher or had been tougher in the past or where there is more emphasis on profession and income as a sign of success you have less freedom to goose what you want to do. Not surprisingly women like men want autonomy and to be regarded with respect

The people bringing this up as a gotcha never want to talk about the pay gap in those countries though in other situations they are keen to portray the gender pay gap as a being natural and a result of women choosing lower paid professions. Actually the fact that women are more likely to choose certain professions when they aren't massively underpaid proves the opposite.

If you read this paper carefully it becomes clear that the root of the matter is that women are still expected to carry the lion's share of domestic work and childcare, regardless of how much paid work they do. In other words, the actual remaining sexism lurking under the egalitarian legislation. Women may work; but men haven't reciprocated by adjusting the burden at home. (And doesn't Denmark have a notably high rate of domestic violence too?)

The authors are arguing that in a low-tax, low welfare economy, women both can and need to ease this burden by buying in domestic and childcare services and continuing to work/work more hours. So women's careers are less disrupted. Whereas in the high welfare, high tax Nordic economies, she has less available earned money to pay for services, and so doing the domestic/childcare herself, wholly or partly supported by the state, is the more viable option.

In other words, it's not about women's innate preferences, it's about the effects of different economic approaches on what is viable for them.

It could be that the diffrences were always there, but people felt compelled to deny them as society made attempts to flatten them out in the name of equality.

Perhaps when it is felt that 'equality' has been achieved then people feel free to re-assert or express their actual preferences and differences again?

You're right, a similar curiosity.

A bit like the Nordic equality paradox where those countries have bigger differences in careers and personalities?

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/nordic-glass-ceiling#introduction

Polanski's Greens are the most sexist party out there, only rivalled by the Scottish Greens and the SNP.
Any party kowtowing to men LARPing as women is the very definition of weaponised sexism.
The cherry on the cake is the progressive virtue signalling.
Like calling Bernard Manning in the 70s a second wave feminist.

I agree with @SionnachRuadh

You say that every time you do it, and then a couple of weeks later you do it again.

I literally do not know what you get out of scouring threads that have been inactive for months and then leaving multiple replies going "Hello! I'd like to revive this dead conversation and have an interesting exchange about this point that you probably don't remember making!"

Others may be fine with it, but I find it highly annoying and a bit creepy.

It does strike me as unexpected that the generation raised after it became received truth in humanities and social sciences that behasvioural sex differences are all socially constructed demonstrates more behavioural differences between the sexes than my generation did.

Yes, to Shabana Mahmood - but you suspect her own party will block her progress and thwart her aims.

Kemi Badenoch does have substance in my view, and she is one of the very few who have displayed a really firm grasp of the issue of trans ideology and the negative impacts it is having. Thank goodnes she was the lead of 'Women and Equalities' when she was.

She's delivered some really fantastic performances in the commons on a number of issues going back quite a few years. She delievered a great performance on the issue of slavery reparations put forward by Labour. Did you see that? She's her own person ( even though a little too economically ideological for my taste) and is never afraid to stand up and be counted on issues that really matter to her.

And judging by recent polls she seems to be the most rated leader ( or the least disrespected) amongst the current crop. I'll ve voting Conservative for the first time in my life at any upcoming elections on account of her.

In the Sandy Peggie case the doctor's complaint was specifically that she would not remove her clothes (which had to be changed after menstrual flooding) in front of him. That was the basis of the legal case. His hurty feelings when a much older woman declined to strip in front of him.

If you haven't read that case, and the Darlington nurses' one (both covered here over many threads, if you need the detailed evidence), don't theorise.

.

I apologise, I know it's an older thread but I thought it might be OK to revive as it's late January so more recent.
I understand if you don't want to reply. I didn't think I'd asked you a lot of questions, (as 2 of my quotes were just agreement) but I can see it's annoying to get questions on older ones, I shan't revive again- I thought your comment about younger UK women voting Green in such large numbers was intetesting, that was all.

@Carla786 Why are you once again reviving zombie threads and peppering me with questions on months-old comments? What are you getting out of this?