Guest post: "We've set up The Women's Equality Party - and we need you"

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

When I was 17, I thought the world was my oyster. By the time I hit 37, I felt like a well-worn piece of grit that stood little chance of becoming a pearl, no matter how hard I tried.

These days I look at my daughters and I think about how I can open up the world for them and give them all the chances I thought I had, but didn't.

Today marks three weeks until the general election. Everyone's talking about it being a cliffhanger, but I don't see it that way. To me it seems like a foregone conclusion – a forty-something white man in a suit will be in charge again.

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against forty-something white men. I'm married to one, for a start. He's lovely. But I suspect that the reason all the polls are showing a general lack of enthusiasm for the ballot on May 7 may be that many others like me are finding it hard to muster enthusiasm to make a choice when it seems as though we're in for a disappointment, whoever wins.

Quite often I wish I had moved back to my native Scotland, so that I could vote for the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon and a woman's take on politics. Many women I know are considering voting Green because its female leader Natalie Bennett looks like she could also offer a different perspective.

When it comes down to it, I want to vote for someone who I think cares and understands my life. Right now I don't see anyone standing for parliament in my local community who fits that bill. Neither do a great many of my friends.

So we've decided to do something about it. This isn't another ‘if only’ article. This is a call to come with us and help us change things.

We're setting up The Women's Equality Party, and we want you. And the bloke sitting beside you. Because equality for women isn't just a women's issue. When women and girls fulfill their potential, men and boys do too. A system in which 78 percent of MPs are men, and there are more men called John leading FTSE 100 companies than there are women leading those companies, disadvantages men as well as women. They're only seeing half the world and they're only living in half of it. When both sexes can live and work side by side, the whole world opens up. (And there's your oyster, my lovely girls.)

There's a whole bunch of policies to achieve equality that I've yet to see make it on to any manifesto. So the Women's Equality Party is setting out to do something about them.

We want equal pay: an end to the grim reality that because you're a woman you're probably receiving less money from your boss at the end of every month than Kevin and Gary across the office.

We want equal parenting: the opportunity for your children's dad to spend more time with them – whether paternity leave, or just sports day and the nativity play, or that day when they're ill and someone needs to stay home - without being looked at weirdly and cut out of interesting projects at work.

We want equal career opportunities: so that while dads are with the kids more often, both mums and women without kids can pursue a career without bearing the burden of expectation that they're only going to take loads of time off should they get pregnant - and thus miss out on those promotions to Kevin and Gary across the office.

And while we're at it, how about an end to violence against woman? How about an end to the lazy classification of science, building and exploring as being ‘boys' stuff’? How about the creation of an education system that creates opportunities for all girls and boys along with an understanding of why this matters?

Because it does matter. These things aren't just ‘nice to have’. They are not things that we should just get around to once we've sorted out the deficit and the NHS. They are essential.

Take the economy. Numerous research papers have proven that companies whose staff is diverse in gender and race are more likely than those without that to expand market share and capture new markets. It's the kind of performance that any company emerging from our recent recession, and any Chancellor of the Exchequer, would surely want to see.

Take society. When women and men are set up in opposition neither side wins. Instead of grinding along feeling as though the other side doesn't understand or sympathise, we can live as partners and fulfil our true potential.

And take the world of politics. With equal numbers of women and men in parliament, both sexes can govern their country to the benefit of everyone.

We can bring about change by winning – support, votes and seats. Our focus is clear and our aim is to keep attracting votes from the other parties until they embrace and adopt our agenda of equality.

Interested? The Women's Equality Party's mission statement is listed in full on their Facebook page here and they are meeting to discuss the way forward on Saturday, 5.30pm until 8pm, at the Conway Hall. You can register to attend and bring all your own ideas here.

Onetwothreeoops - Thanks for the comment and apologies in advance for the very long post. In theory what you believe is correct.. that is the general idea, or so we are told. In practice the truth is rather different and more complex.

The first false premise assumes that where equality between genders exists, it is women who get the short end of the stick. In fact in terms of British and U.S. law, most inequalities fall against men. For example, female genital mutilation was banned in Britain by law in 1985. 30 years later, it is still legal to mutilate baby boys. Female genital integrity is recognized by law as being a human right and worthy of protection, the same is not true for boys, which then has knock on social effects.

Another false premise assumes that men are always responsible for women not achieving what they believe they should be able to achieve. It fails to consider that women themselves may be responsible for this. For example, women are under-represented in a number of fields of employment. This could be explained simply as a lack of female interest in those things. But the 'Equality' movement always assumes there has to be some oppressive cause and then tries to manufacture one when something isn't immediately obvious. For example, instead of women just not being that interested in maths, we are told that they are prejudiced from birth by parents and teachers into believing they aren't good at maths and not given opportunities to develop maths skills, which fulfills the prophecy of lack of female engagement in maths-related subjects. Or it could just be that women are more interested in People, and men are more interested in Things.
The equality movement NEVER accepts innante human natures and drives or even genetics as a factor in percieved female inequalities. It ALWAYS must have a social cause.

Most of the 'inequalities' in western society which affect women are due to social treatment, not law. So there's nothing in law preventing women from doing what they want, it is attitudes of people which may pose barriers to forward progress in some areas and yes that does need to change but this line of thought also fails to acknowledge that men likewise suffer from societal expectations of them and the 'women's rights' movement does nothing to remedy this, besides telling men to start their own movement if they want such change, and then to slam any men's forums or gatherings as misogynistic when they do actually form a group.

I could go on, but the short answer to your question is no, fighting for women's rights as a single issue most definitely does not mean equality for the genders will be achieved. It's like trying to fix one component in a broken device without understanding how all the other parts around it are supposed to work and interact with the bit your working on and then fixing them too. Ignoring inequalities that men, people of colour, people of various faiths and sexualities suffer means that equality will never be achieved and worse, in some cases great harm can result.

Example: 2 women die each week in the UK from domestic violence, which is tragic but statistically insignificant given the large size of the population. Consider then, that in the same week an incredible 520! males over the age of 15 will take their own lives. Then ask yourself if you've heard anything in the media of late about the rising epidemic of male deaths. They are increasing year on year in the hundreds.... whereas female deaths from domestic violence remain fairly stable. By focusing heavily on female domestic violence as a serious issue, valuable resources and attention is taken away from a greater problem. And what is causing all these men to kill themselves could in fact be the same motivating factor involved with male violence against their partners. Look at the wider issue and see the relationships and you can help both genders at the same time. The Women's Equality Party's approach is far too narrow here to be effective. At best it will raise awareness of issues we are already well aware of, and overshadow others we know little about and really should be a lot more to curb.

This is Mumsnet, which means a lot of you will have sons and nephews, (not to mention husbands, brothers and dads). You each have a far greater chance of one of your male loved ones taking his own life than you do of losing yours to a violent partner. Just over 100 women died from domestic violence, while 60 people died in the same period from lightning strike... and 6,233 men killed themselves. It's time women used their great power for communicating and banding together to support causes to raise awareness of issues like this and make sure they are given due consideration, instead of glib comments about men going away and forming their own groups when men just aren't as good at organising these things as women are. It's a chance for women to lead the way, use their power and make a real difference. But you'll find most leaders in the movement aren't genuinely interested in true 'equality'.

"It's time women used their great power for communicating and banding together to support causes to raise awareness of issues like this and make sure they are given due consideration, instead of glib comments about men going away and forming their own groups when men just aren't as good at organising these things as women are."

Righty ho.

That would be the men in power who didn't legislate against mutilating baby boys - not women

Men killing themselves - again carried out by men - not women.

Human drives, innate natures and genetic consequence - you lost my interest there I'm afraid. Because all you're doing is justifying inequality.

Do I think it's appalling that men kill themselves ? Yes, but let's look at how many women attempt suicide and simply don't succeed. Let's look at how many women are on anti-depressants and still suffering. Let's look at why women are able to ask for help and men refuse to do so. Let's consider that many women don't feel that they have the option of suicide given that they are the primary carers for children and elderly relatives. Let's talk about why men aren't doing much to help and assist those men who are struggling.

Or is it all just drive, nature and genetics ?

A party for women's equality doesn't harm men. Men harm men. Own it and do something about it.

It's much easier just to moan about the wimmin, blistory. Oh, and make them do something about it cos the menz is busy killing an shit

Sadly you have a point, Hully. Shame that some men (because obviously NAMALT) won't ever get it.

I am glad to see this and really excited. I feel rude quibbling - but I guess that's part of the idea? I hope so, and hope I can quibble in the right spirit. I am very excited.

But I'm a little confused - there was talk about a Feminist Party before this, wasn't there - is that what this is building on?

I also echo buffy's concerns, too. I accept a softly-softly approach may be necessary, but I do also feel a bit uneasy about just how softly softly this is.

I listened to Sandi Toksvig on Women's Hour (and I think she is generally absolutely brilliant). Was it necessary to have the crack about 'just having a woman on the bank note', though? I don't know if I mistook that, but it sounded a bit sneery.

Excited, rude, quibbling, confused and uneasy all in one post ?

In all seriousness, I see it much the same way that I see the SNP as a movement rather than a political party. So while I support their aims and would happily vote for them, I'm not overly concerned about them getting everything right or in alignment with my beliefs as long as they get the big issues right. I suppose each of us has to determine what our own big issues are but right now, their stated aims align quite neatly with mine.

It's true, blis. I'm staggering under perception of my own feminine limitations.

But yes, I do take your point. I just think, since they are here to talk, why not talk too?

I support all the stuff listed in the OP but this seems to me more like a pressure group/movement than a party. I don't have any sense from the post or anything else I've read where the Women's Equality Party stands on the economy, employment rights, benefit cuts, housing policy, privatising bits of the NHS etc etc.

Great to raise the issues but I just don't think single-issue parties have much to offer.

I don't see them getting any real power in a political sense for a couple of years.

What I'd like them to achieve is the normalisation of hearing women speak out. I'd like to see women come out of the shadows and say that we matter, we're an equal part of this society and we're tired of asking others to treat as equally.

I'm excited about the idea of women not relying on a male political leader to give them a place. I don't think it's a coincidence that the female political party leaders are the ones doing well in the opinion polls. I think there is an opportunity for political and social reform with this election and I think women should capitalise on it.

Yes, I agree, it's always good to see anything that normalises women speaking out.

I do want to know how/if they're connected to previous attempts at the same thing, though.

Which other forums have you joined recently to push forward your plans, GC? Or are we uniquely honoured by your insults here at MN?

I'm finding him curiously hawt. I'd like to see him in a beach body ready campaign. Phwoooaaarrr.

I speak anywhere on the internet where I find people acting in a bigoted manner. This is my first time commenting at Mumsnet, though I'd read the forums previously and been disgusted by some of the female misogyny I find here. The fact your admins have started deleting posts they can't handle emotionally says it all really. Women shut down men when they 'feel' under attack and diasgree with what we say. Not much point contributing to a forum that censors dissenting voices. This attitude is why women are still suffering - because you are great talkers but terrible listeners. You also view everything in life from a female persective meaning you don't understand the way men express themselves nor do you want to try understanding. You expect us to come over to your side of the fence and act like you, yet when we do, we are despised. We can't win. And sadly neither can you while you maintain this attitude. The Women's Equality Party from what I've seen so far is a big joke and doomed to fail. I'll be giving my vote to more balanced women in the Green or SNP parties. Ciao.

Your posts were deleted because they contained personal attacks, which are against guidelines.

Adieu.

"female misogyny"

This probably isn't what you meant, dear.

A lot of women don't know what 'misandry' means so I had to translate.

My posts did not contain personal attacks, they contained personal responses in disagreement which someone somewhere couldn't handle emotionally because they are fragile petals.

"We've set up The Women's Equality Party - and we need you" - Unless your a man, or a woman who disagrees with us, or gay or black or anything but a white woman.

Oh, not going after all?

You told a poster she was disgusting. That is a personal attack. Read the guidelines for help.

Your "translation" gave your sentence an entirely different meaning; an odd choice.

If someone condones they mutilation of an infant's genitals then they are disgusting, absolutely. I make no apology for that.

How many mothers on this website had their babies butchered I wonder. Did you?

GC, if you spend long enough here, you'll find 90+% of the responses on any circumcision thread are against.

Perhaps you are in the US where it is a much more common practice?

"That would be the men in power who didn't legislate against mutilating baby boys - not women"

You read this as Blistory condoning circumcision? Err, what??

I'm in the UK where it's still legal to practise circumcision on boys, but where it was banned in 1985 on girls.

Blistory's comment puts the blame for this at the feet of men. She refuses to acknowledge that women are as much to blame for this. Instead of pointing the finger at men, she should be saying 'You are right, we all need to work together to have this banned, and as mothers of these defenceless little boys we have power to unite and achieve that'. Instead she says... it's men's fault. That is condoning it Yonic, through apathy.

If you were a Jew and a Nazi was coming to kill you and your non-Jew neighbour stood by and did nothing but wring their hands and say, gosh I don't condone this, it's really awful... but it's the Nazi's fault, not mine, there's nothing I can or am willing to do to help... then they are equally guilty of the crime.

The 'men in power' only legislated against FGM because women asked them to do it. If 90% of women on Mumsnet are against it, why haven't I had a petition in my inbox to sign? Why isn't it in the papers or on the news when FGM is still a topic? Why aren't politicians promising to have it banned if we vote them in? Fact is, it's not on the discussion board and women are equally responsible for that as men.