Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that the tories really do dislike women....

93 replies

prettywhiteguitar · 01/11/2011 11:34

thats it really.

And with every policy it just confirms it fo me that they think we are second class citizens.

OP posts:
PerryCombover · 01/11/2011 11:38

er...

yabu if this is your entire post although I guess you will drip drip drip your point of view

worraliberty · 01/11/2011 11:40

Errrm yeah we probably need a bit more info if you really want us to decide if YABU or not Lol....

AnonWasAWoman · 01/11/2011 11:48

Yes, I think you're right.

Though I was also massively unimpressed with the (Lib Dem) Evan Harris on the webchat recently, who couldn't see why it might be an issue that the cuts disproportionately affect women, or that women tend to access public funding more often than men on behalf of their families. Hmm

I think the Coalition in general is really not great.

ElderberrySyrup · 01/11/2011 11:55

I think there is a lot of misogyny on the right. And also on the left.

The vibe I am getting from Cameron & co at the moment is not so much hatred of women as a public schoolboy belief that women are a different species and a complete confusion about how to react to them. Clegg is better at it than most of the cabinet. Women are getting stuffed by their policies but I don't think it is anti-woman vindictiveness, I think it is hatred of the poor together with a refusal to understand the reasons why women are poorer than men or to regard that as an issue rather than just the way the world naturally is.

Ed Milliband also seems a bit more normal, but it really pissed me off the way women were elbowed out towards the end of the last Labour administration. The Blair's babes stuff was pretty vile too - Blair was happy to have lots of women in his government as long as they were young and unthreatening. It was a great shame that the good intake of women MPs never translated into sensible numbers of women in senior positions. This is something that has got to change if Labour want to be seen as a party for women, no matter how good for equality their policies are.

Misogyny on the left in general is a whole other issue and I have got to go and pick up ds2 from preschool now, but I think there is a lot to be said about attitudes among leftie men who are critical of every other prejudice but won't acknowledge their own sexism.

LaPruneDeMaTante · 01/11/2011 12:01

I think they are aware of what they are doing - they can't not be, it's being written about in the press, a bit at least, and there are organisations highlighting the facts and spelling them out very slooowllly.

They have been planning their social-engineering spree for so long that I can't imagine a piddling little detail like 'misogyny' is going to stop them. The time is ripe (thanks to media collusion) to create a real underclass, rather than the minority the papers have been highlighting. There will be more men than women in it, "boo hoo" I imagine they tell each other when Teresa's out of the room.

Original poster
prettywhiteguitar · 01/11/2011 12:07

Right....

I'm totally incensed by the recent discussion about alteration to legal aid - this will disproportionately affect women and will affect deeply the well being of a lot of women in times of need

public service cuts

child benefit cuts

child services cuts

tax credit cuts

nursery contribution cut

if I was still a single parent and going through what i wenr through with my ex I would be forced back into poverty, dependancy and totally unable to access legal aid to fight it and understand my rights

thats my arguement no drip feeding from me

OP posts:
TheTenantOfWildfellHall · 01/11/2011 12:12

I don't think it's hatred or dislike of women in general.

It's just a total and utter lack of regard of women in general.

They haven't set out to deliberately penalise women, it just hasn't really occurred to them to consider whether or not we will be disproportionately affected by the changes made.

LaPruneDeMaTante · 01/11/2011 12:15

But now it's been pointed out to them...? What are we meant to make of their lack of engagement on the subject? And the pathetic attempts at appearing to want to be 'in touch with ' (let's face it) a large number of their own voters?

If I'm unwittingly being an arse, and someone points it out, I'm twice the arse for ignoring it.

And you can argue that their refusal to have worked it out in the first place is just as much passive misogyny as they're now showing actively by not giving a shit.

JosieRosie · 01/11/2011 12:16

I agree that it's not actual hatred of women - I think they are such an entitled bunch of tossers that they don't regard anyone who's outside their little clique as worthy of their time or consideration. Although Cameron really showed his true colours with the way he spoke to Angela Eagle and Nadine Dorries in the House recently. As did Gideon who was pissing his pants with laughter both times

LaPruneDeMaTante · 01/11/2011 12:17

ALSO I simply do not believe that they didn't know their raft of changes was going to affect women.
These people are not THICK, they are not unaware, they have advisers everywhere. They knew.

ElderberrySyrup · 01/11/2011 12:19

Presumably their response to its being pointed out to them is the neoliberal one that it's all about choice - women are poorer because (according to this doctrine) they have made the choices that made them poorer, such as not doing the right subjects at university (or indeed not going to university, in the case of older women), having children, giving up work to care for relatives, etc.
We know that it is bollocks that all these things are choices, but I bet you that is the way they see it.

Original poster
prettywhiteguitar · 01/11/2011 12:22

Exactly LaPrune

The cynic in me feels the offering of caesarean section to all women is a quick fix to getting us on side too

OP posts:
worraliberty · 01/11/2011 12:24

I'm totally incensed by the recent discussion about alteration to legal aid - this will disproportionately affect women and will affect deeply the well being of a lot of women in times of need

public service cuts ...Also affects men

child benefit cuts ....Also affects men

child services cuts ....Also affects men

tax credit cuts ....Also affects men

nursery contribution cut ....Also affects men

Have I missed something or are men no longer parents any more? Confused

ElderberrySyrup · 01/11/2011 12:24

course it is PWG, that is not overly cynical of you.

HitTheRoadJack · 01/11/2011 12:25

Are you comparing it to say Labour?

You moan about benefits yet used the expression "single parent" not "single mother".

It isn't just women having a hard time from benefit cuts.

PartyPooperz · 01/11/2011 12:26

TheTenant "They haven't set out to deliberately penalise women, it just hasn't really occurred to them to consider whether or not we will be disproportionately affected by the changes made."

Sounds like a pretty good description of indirect sex discrimination to me. Employment tribunals wouldn't have any problem applying that to declare the measures the OP has listed as indirect sex discrimination.

Rhubarb0oooo · 01/11/2011 12:29

That there are fewer Tory MPs who are women is true.
That there are fewer women MPs full stop is true.
David Cameron has made some stupid sexist remarks to women MPs.
So based on that I'd say that women still have a long way to go and that Cameron and his mates (having come from an exclusively male school and joined the exclusively male Bullingdon Club) probably are quite sexist, yes.
But don't forget that the old Tory Battleaxe WAS a woman and however much you might hate Thatcher, you have to admire the fact that she battled her way, as a woman, to the very top.

As for cuts, well they affect everyone as worraliberty has pointed out.

You might as well say that the Tories hate children because all of their cuts impact on children's lives.

ElderberrySyrup · 01/11/2011 12:30

of course this stuff also affects men but the word is disproportionately. Women are more likely to be carers or single parents or live in poverty.

PartyPooperz · 01/11/2011 12:32

Oh and YANBU Op. In the face of overwhelming evidence I have to agree with you. Charging single "parents" to use the CSA FFS! Another example of a blanket policy which when looked at disproportionately affects women.

Rhubarb0oooo · 01/11/2011 12:33

And them offering caesareans to women just means that the midwife shortage which is reaching crisis point will be overlooked as hopefully more women will choose to have an operation rather than give birth naturally.

What would be more impressive is if they guaranteed a midwife for every single pregnant woman no matter where she chose to give birth.

Offering out caesareans will come back to bite them on the bum. It's an ill-thought out and pointless gesture that means nothing.

AnonWasAWoman · 01/11/2011 12:33

worra - if you dig up the Evan Harris webchat, he addresses some of this (from the 'it's all fine' perspective, sadly).

Women do get disproportionately shafted by the cuts. Of course it matters that men are also getting hurt by them. But naturally, there are going to be more women who're concerned, so it is IMO only right we get up and make a fuss about it, instead of expecting the smaller number of men to protest disproportionately hard.

When you think about it that way, I think it makes more sense/sounds less as if anyone wants to ignore the men who're affected.

MillyR · 01/11/2011 12:34

Worraliberty, the poster was saying that those areas disproportionately has an impact on women. She isn't saying that it has no impact on men.

Some of it isn't about being a parent anyway; cutting jobs in the public sector had more impact on female employees than on men.

suzikettles · 01/11/2011 12:34

It's about useful economic units isn't it? With a very narrow, shortsighted definition of what makes a useful economic unit (wage earner, money maker).

So if you're below working age, of working age but not working because you're sick, disabled, unemployed, a carer, or beyond working age then hell mend you. You're a burden on the economic units and should Know Your Place.

But we always knew this about the Conservative Party didn't we? It's hardly a surprise.

There is of course the extra suspicion cast on all women though, as even when they are useful economic units they could pack it all in to become carers, so none of us are to be trusted.

AnonWasAWoman · 01/11/2011 12:34

Cross-posted but absolutely agree re. midwives.

LaPruneDeMaTante · 01/11/2011 12:35

Oh god the Thatcher-was-a-woman chestnut. Give us a break. She was the 'feminine' face that allowed a lot of fairly new and rather vile social/economic ideas to be accepted by a bunch of old men who were slow to see that the old order wouldn't work much longer. I don't admire her in the slightest.