Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Guest posts

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Guest post: Sandi Toksvig - "The time is right for the Women's Equality Party"

533 replies

MumsnetGuestPosts · 06/11/2015 17:49

I'm rather old fashioned in my beliefs. I always thought that when Parliament passed a law, people were supposed to take notice. So how is it that 45 years ago an Equal Pay Act was introduced, and yet no one has really acted to make sure we get it? When I mentioned the gender pay gap to the environment minister, Liz Truss, she said "It's smaller than it's ever been." It's at 19%. How big was it before?

Much of the world baffles me. How does the UK tolerate the fact that so many women because they are women still live in poverty, suffer harassment and violence, and abandon careers they enjoy because of the exorbitant costs of childcare? I've come to the sad conclusion that in its current form our political system can't be trusted to deal with any of this. There are twice as many men as women in the House of Commons, and they seem to spend most of their time shouting and jeering at one another. Frankly, like many of you, I'm embarrassed by it. Seven months ago, in conversation with my friend Catherine Mayer, I realised it was time for us to take matters into our own hands.

So in March 2015 we founded the Women's Equality Party, a new political force that (we hoped) would unite people of all genders, ages, backgrounds, ethnicities, beliefs and experiences in the shared determination to see women enjoy the same rights and opportunities as men. It would be something new. Non-partisan. Attracting people from the left, from the right, from the centre. People who have had enough of waiting for equality. I have to say even at my most ambitious and optimistic, I could not have predicted the flood of support that soon washed over us. Within seven months WE have more than 50,000 members and supporters, ably led by Sophie Walker, 65 branches across the country and will be standing candidates in the spring elections.

This is not some dreamy group wistfully hoping for change. Late last month, just six months after that initial conversation, I found myself sitting in a hall packed with cheering activists and supporters, clutching a book of wonderfully pragmatic policy proposals. Policies developed through close consultation with experts and our members, and representing the experiences and concerns of thousands of women and men across the country.

WE heard from mothers who want to go back to work but can't, because of crippling childcare costs, and because so few workplaces have actually embraced flexible working.

WE heard from mothers who choose to stay at home, but feel dismissed by society for doing so because, despite its immense value, caring labour is still not recognised, respected and supported.

WE heard from fathers who desperately want to share the joys and responsibilities of parenthood, but are stigmatised for wanting to balance work and home life.

All these experiences reinforced our awareness that care is not taken seriously in our society, nor are the people who care.

WE want to change that.

That's why we propose a dramatic overhaul of parental leave policy. We would guarantee both parents six weeks of non-transferable leave on 90% pay, with an additional 10 months of shared parental leave at statutory pay. This policy would, of course, encompass same-sex couples and adoptive parents, while single parents would be entitled to nominate a second caregiver.

Once this period of leave has passed, WE believe that families should immediately have access to affordable, high-quality childcare. The educational benefits of childcare are clearest in the first 15 hours a week, so those hours should be entirely state funded, with the rest payable at one pound per hour by parents.

These policies are good for women, who have greater freedom to balance work and home life (which will, of course, mean different things to different people). But they're also excellent for men who, for too long, have been excluded from participating fully in family life because care is seen as unmanly, and paternity leave as unprofessional.

Of course, all of our policies require a blend of legislative and cultural change. The reason the Equal Pay Act still isn't working properly is because back in 1970 we changed the law without changing the way people think.

And that's where education comes in.

Many people think equality in education has already been achieved, since girls consistently outperform boys academically. But education is about more than grades, it's about learning how to live, and work, and build relationships. And at present, our children are learning to live according to ludicrous, outdated notions of 'masculine' and 'feminine' behaviour.

So WE want more diverse role models for both boys and girls, starting with encouraging more men to enter primary school teaching and other caring roles. And WE want careers guidance that pays no heed to gender when helping young people to map their futures. And WE want proper, honest sex and relationships education to finally become a reality.

It all sounds very obvious and straightforward, doesn't it? Sadly, enacting these policies will be a lot harder than formulating them. And that's why WE need you. Join us, share your ideas. The time is right for this movement, and WE want you to be part of it.

Photo: Fiona Hanson

OP posts:
SeekEveryEveryKnownHidingPlace · 12/11/2015 11:22

Absolutely, Cactus and Archery - even aside from the fundamentally ill-thought through process by which they've decided to call themselves the WEP but think you can define your own sex and that other people defining themselves as women and demanding access to woman-only spaces might be something that a WOMAN'S equality party might need to have had a little think about...

The actions of the WEP on this thread have been insultingly patronizing and high-handed. 'I'm sorry if you feel we're not listening: we are listening' is just pathetic. 6 days they took, to come up with that! WEP, you are not listening, you are not thinking, you are rude. The OP stated - Enacting the Party's policies will be harder than formulating them: well, maybe that was your problem, because the formulation process says to me: fag packet, back of, handy biro.

CactusAnnie · 12/11/2015 11:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CharlieSierra · 12/11/2015 11:46

Or even if you don't exclude them, they call you transphobic for discussing issues pertaining to women's biology, thereby the ones with the male anatomy dictate the agenda? How strange, men telling women what they should be concerned about......

KateMumsnet · 12/11/2015 11:51

@ArcheryAnnie

It's both unprofessional and politically counter-productive to set up engagement opportunities that you can't follow through on.

Hello ArcheryAnnie

We're sure Sophie will be reading and, as she says upthread, listening. We think it's worth bearing in mind, though, that this is a guest post rather than a webchat; from an MNHQ perspective, we don't feel it would be fair to insist that guest posters engage repeatedly on the subsequent thread. We certainly encourage them to do so wherever possible - but realistically, Sophie (and guest posters in general) will be pretty busy with other commitments.

CactusAnnie · 12/11/2015 11:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SeekEveryEveryKnownHidingPlace · 12/11/2015 12:01

Well, nobody was going to try to force WEP to engage - but we can't help but notice that they don't, and are free to draw our own conclusions, right?

Imagine an OP on another thread who popped back 6 days later to say she was reading and listening and was going to respond and then went away again! You can't ask MNers to take an interest and get fired up about your party and then show them contempt to that level!

QueenStromba · 12/11/2015 12:01

I just had a skim through the first couple of pages of guest posts and spotted another that was by a politician and the dump and run didn't go well for him either. Maybe you need to start advising politicians not to do a guest post if they are not going to be available to engage with us afterwards.

BubsandMoo · 12/11/2015 12:02

KateMumsnet- it's more that multiple people, WE members and non, have emailed or tweeted the party asking for them to answer these questions and clarify/defend their stance, and here seems the perfect forum to do so, clearly and publicly. I think it is perfectly reasonable to be disappointed that WE are failing to do so.

I would have thought that many target followers expressing disappointment and party members & activists being driven away would be precisely the kind of thing a politician should be busying themselves with, to be honest.

QueenStromba · 12/11/2015 12:11

Exactly Bubs. WEP should be prioritising MN as we are theoretically their exact target demographic but they are 'too busy' to engage with us properly. Funny how the Labour Party and the Conservatives are not too busy to engage with us. Have WEP decided that they didn't really need to bother that much with us because we'd just support them no matter what since they have Women in their name? They've fucked this up royally and I'm sure I won't be the only one bringing it up every time they try and recruit us in the future.

reni2 · 12/11/2015 12:11

I'm not sure the guest post is the right format for a party policy proposal if there is no engagement afterwards. It does make sense for a women's party to post on mn of course, but if that party turns out to be the Whatever Equality Party that privilege should go and Labour & Co should get a guest post, too. Unless of course they have in the past (I'm relatively new to mn).

ArcheryAnnie · 12/11/2015 12:35

to insist that guest posters engage repeatedly on the subsequent thread

Oh, come on, KateMumsnet. Who is insisting they do that?

The guest post explicitly says "Join us, share your ideas.". It's reasonable when we have shared our ideas to expect that someone - anyone - will acknowledge that, otherwise they shouldn't have said it. Five days later, Sophie comes in, late in the evening, repeatedly says she is "listening" then does anything but.

They have asked for engagement then responded once, briefly, five days late, well into the evening, in a way that makes it clear they will not be dealing in a substantive way with any of the points we spent time and energy raising.

If you look at my posts upthread you can see I was predisposed to give them a chance - I don't know much about Sophie but obvs I do know more about Sandi, and what I know I've really liked. They are wasting that goodwill. If they want to build a movement, then they need to learn sooner rather than later how not to alienate and patronise the people who are most predisposed to support them.

This isn't a guest poster writing about anything personal. This is a guest post from the founder of a political party who is asking for our support and asking us to engage. We should do them the courtesy of taking them seriously, and not make excuses for them dumping and running.

BeyondThirty · 12/11/2015 12:46

We can only engage with them if they engage back. Otherwise that aint "engaging"!! Grin

EmpressKnowsWhereHerTowelIs · 12/11/2015 12:49

Kate, did they expect us to just read the post & blindly vote for them because we're women & Sandi's a celebrity? Because they certainly don't seem to be after engagement & discussion.

I emailed them & got an auto-reply saying they'd respond in 3 working days. Over a week ago.

When I finally managed to get their attention on Twitter, my DM was replied to with their diversity policy about a world where everyone can name their own sex & gender (and making the term Women's Equality Party pretty meaningless). Sophie's apologised for that - sort of - but given that it didn't address a single one of my points, that felt fucking insulting and as if WEP listened to women in exactly the same way as Owen Jones does - when they're saying what they want to hear. Last night she offered some platitudes on the thread and then disappeared.

There's an idiot over on Media Requests at the moment asking to hear from women who no longer fancy their husbands. She wants to exploit us too, but at least she's doing it openly.

Can you tell I'm angry and disappointed?

Garlick · 12/11/2015 13:58

The WEP is treating woman as a gender identity not a group of female bodied people.

I think this kind of sums it up - and is perfectly natural. Most argument about women's rights has been for altering the gender role, from "women are too silly to vote", via "women's work is less valuable" to "a woman's no means maybe". It has, in fact, been focused on gender because gender is the construct used to keep us in our place - it adversely affects men, too, but few of them have got around to seeing it yet.

So 'women' is naturally conflated with 'female gender roles'.

It takes a bit of analytical thought to separate the sexually-dimorphic entity, female humans, from the gender construct. Then a little more thought to understand how the biological reality is used oppressively as gender. It's not difficult but it is counter-intuitive, since we're all taught about gender from the moment we are born.

This has recently become a potential problem for several important reasons.

The existence of male-bodied 'women' performing caricatured female gender roles, while demanding the link between biology & gender be broken, strikes to the very core of the matter. I can understand people not getting it, but they need to recognise it - especially if they claim to nationally represent women.

Another important area is one that's been raised a number of times here: women are, biologically, the half of our species that gives birth. Due to the physical and emotional demands of this enterprise, women shouldn't be expected to work (for money) in the same pattern as men. Yet our economic & business structures are built for the man whose woman does the reproduction and, conveniently, the 'life work'. Instead of seeking ways to facilitate childbirth within existing structures, shouldn't we be looking at ways to rearrange our values & expectations to take account of the difference?
Again, this requires acknowledgement of the differences.

CharlieSierra · 12/11/2015 17:25

Nobody been back then? What a shocker Hmm

HamaTime · 12/11/2015 18:04

realistically, Sophie (and guest posters in general) will be pretty busy with other commitments

Realistically, everyone is busy. The posters here have taken time out of their day to respond to the call to 'share your ideas' and have been presented with nothing in return except a confirmation that men will be put front and centre in matters of women's safe spaces and women's rights to dignified and respectful and safe post natal care.

Am I the only one baffled by the "our children are learning to live according to ludicrous, outdated notions of 'masculine' and 'feminine' behaviour" in the OP, followed by "Tara Hudson has lived as a woman"? Either gendered behaviour is outdated and ludicrous or it's so important that it's worth risking the safety and dignity of a prison full of women for. It cannot be both.

ArcheryAnnie · 12/11/2015 18:23

Yeah, this "pretty busy" thing is insulting. We know they are busy. We're all busy. Still no excuse.

As I said, it's both unprofessional and politically counter-productive to behave like this.

Jux · 12/11/2015 18:25

More likely they haven't formulated a sensible answer yet, or still grappling with the ideas.

OddBoots · 12/11/2015 18:32

It took me a lot of thinking over an extended time to get to grips with my own cognitive dissonance to the extent I felt confident engaging in discussion - it must be very hard when there are so many expectant people watching.

CactusAnnie · 12/11/2015 18:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

howtorebuild · 12/11/2015 18:34

Is the party run as a collective? If so they may need to get together, then consult legal and PR before returning.

CactusAnnie · 12/11/2015 18:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Garlick · 12/11/2015 19:04

That really made me laugh, Annie. I fear you may be right.

It will be interesting to see whether any of these ideas resurface in WEP strategy. Or, indeed, whether we'll soon be reading "Women's Equality Party distances itself from feminism" headlines.

EmpressKnowsWhereHerTowelIs · 12/11/2015 19:11

They're liberal 3rd wave feminists though aren't they?

venusinscorpio · 12/11/2015 19:13

Agree with CactusAnnie. They expected that they would chuck out a few soundbites and that would be it. The post from KateMumsnet was ridiculous. They're a fledgling political party. Of course they are going to have to put the hours in, even if they are "busy" with other commitments! How exactly do they think it works? Who do they think is going to vote for them? As people have said, if they were truly centring women, mumsnet would be the obvious target demographic.

Swipe left for the next trending thread