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

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

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

Yy Juggling, like many jobs traditionally done by women, childcare is not seen as a career or even as very important, sadly. Same as nursing/caring/looking after older people etc etc

In reality surely nothing more important than how we care for one another throughout life. Early years education and care absolutely crucial and proved to be so by quality research - even in economic terms alone society gets back many times what it invests in this area (something like x6 I believe?)

I just want a common sense party. Is that too much to ask?

I sincerely hope WEP isn't campaigning for partners to stay over night on Post Labour wards. Resources are stretched enough in the NHS, and it's a good thing to encourage mothers home. I'd rather resources were used supporting parents in their homes.

I just can't help but feel that there is a massive glass ceiling to break through here. The nasty posh boys running the country will gaffaw at the little women playing politics, and that's why I can't get past the name. You are really up against the monied establishment. I don't think a gender specific name (and yes, of course it's more than a name, but the name itself will turn many people off before they even consider reading your manifesto) will attract as much interest as you possibly could. I think it's the same for The Green Party. You will always be a minority party, which is such a wasted opportunity.
This government are so obvious in their discrimination of women - as they are in their lies and dishonesty - and yet, and yet they don't answer for it. They aren't being held accountable, no one is making a fuss, why? How are we letting them get away with it? Why aren't the other parties and our MPs shouting louder about it?

I'm another woman who would be interested in joining the WEP but am waiting for clarification on policy regarding trans issues.

I noticed that the WEP twitter account retweeted the petition to move Tara Hudson to a women's prison. Was this sanctioned by the party or was it one person's decision? If it was sanctioned was the party aware that, according to Tara's own escort site and reviews on punter sites, Tara has a fully functioning seven inch penis and was using it the day before going to prison? Was the party aware that Tara has eight convictions for violent crimes? If the party was not aware, would either of these two facts have changed the decision to retweet the petition? If the party agrees that fully functioning males with a history of violence do not belong in a women's prison, what controls will you be putting in place to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again?

Tara Hudson is not the only fully functioning violent male to have been placed in women's prisons in the UK. Paris Green, who tortured a man to death over a bag of chips, was moved from one women's prison to another because they kept 'having sex with other inmates'. Who knows how consensual this sex was. Hopefully Tara Hudson's incarceration will be less problematic although I note that they were moved from a male prison with a segregation facility to a women's prison without one. The male prison had the resources to keep Tara safe from other inmates but the women's prison does not have the facilities to keep the other inmates safe from Tara.

These are just two examples of how the feelings of one male have been put above the safety of many women in the name of gender identity. The default position for women is to be supportive of transgender rights - every woman on this thread and others who are critical of this standpoint started out as transgender supporters but then realised that we have been handing over the rights that our mothers and grandmothers fought hard for to males. I could probably write a book on the subject but I will spare you further ramblings and instead provide you with a (entirely uncomprehensive) list of how the transgender agenda is damaging to women and girls.

Safety:

• Christopher 'Jessica' Hambrook gained access to two women's shelters by claiming to be transgender and raped four women.

• Man dresses as woman to access women's toilets and attempts rape.

• UK gender identity specialists warn that there is 'an ever increasing tide' of incarcerated sex-offenders who are pretending to be transgender for the benefits they can get:

"These vary from the opportunity to have trips out of prison through to a desire for a transfer to the female estate (to the same prison as a co-defendant) through to the idea that a parole board will perceive somebody who is female as being less dangerous through to a [false] belief that hormone treatment will actually render one less dangerous through to wanting a special or protected status within the prison system and even (in one very well evidenced case that a highly concerned Prison Governor brought particularly to my attention) a plethora of prison intelligence information suggesting that the driving force was a desire to make subsequent sexual offending very much easier, females being generally perceived as low risk in this regard."

The right to not have to get undressed in front of males:

• Lila Perry campaigned for, and won, the right to use the girl's changing rooms at school despite already being provided with a gender neutral changing room. Note that many of the girls protested against him using their changing rooms. Given that girls their age are normally very pro-trans, I wonder what Lila has done to make them feel uncomfortable.

• Colleen Francis insisted on using the women's changing rooms at a pool at the same time each week that the girl's swim team practised. The city eventually changed the law so that Colleen could be refused entry.

• Woman banned from gym for complaining about a man in the changing rooms. Carlotta Sklodowska, the person in question, is apparently a transvestite with a sexual fetish for fit women rather than a 'real' transwoman. The gym never even bothered to ask.

Sport:
There is a misguided belief that female hormones will remove the physical advantages of male puberty. This is patently untrue as you cannot, for example, change a male skeletal structure into that of a woman's with hormones. This is one of the reasons why transgender athletes who were mediocre as men excel once they start competing against women.

• Fallon Fox has only been beaten once by a woman and did not disclose their transgender status before fighting women. Could also be in the safety section as Fox once almost beat a woman to death in the ring.

• Michelle Dumaresq was 2.5 seconds faster than the winning professional in their first race as an amateur.

• Gabrielle Ludwig gets a place on a women's college basketball team (thus depriving a woman of an opportunity to play/go to college) despite having previously played for the maximum time allowed as a man. Scroll down for a picture that illustrates how ridiculous Gabrielle's advantage is versus the women on the team.

• Eight of the Iranian women's football team are pre-op transexuals (no mention of how many of the others are post op). This not only steals the opportunity to play from Iranian women but is an unfair advantage against other women's teams.

Women's colleges:

• Many women's colleges are now admitting transwomen as students. This not only deprives women of spaces but also means that the college is no longer suitable for women who cannot attend college with males for religious, cultural or other reasons. Unhappy with just this, some transactivists are now campaigning for transwomen to be prioritised over women due to them being more oppressed and having male privilege (this is actually the argument - read the link if you don't believe me). This is just one of many examples of how when women give transwomen an inch they take a mile (although losing all female colleges was way more than a mile to begin with).

• Transwomen are also taking faculty positions at women's colleges.

Prizes meant for women:

• Caitlyn Jenner is Glamour's Woman of the year, despite being a man at the start of it. And a fucking Nobel Prize for courage - what about all the courageous women in the world? Jenner killed a woman in their car nine months ago and now they're some sort of saint?

• Scholarships, grants and prizes meant for women in STEM meant to recognise the hurdles that women face are now going to transwomen.

Statistics:
Transwomen being counted as women for statistical purposes can massively skew results making us look more violent and more successful under the patriarchy.

• Dana McCallum raped their wife and it's probably been recorded as a woman on woman attack.

• Martine Rothblatt is the highest paid business woman in the US but was born a man.

etc. etc.

Great post, Queenstromba. Yes, I would like to add my voice to the call for the WEP to clarify whether they will stand up for women to have biologically sex segregated spaces. If they do not, then in my opinion they are not safeguarding the rights of women and I cannot support them.

QueenStromba Thank you for posting in such a clear and logical way the issues that have become a worry for so many of us. I have been struggling to post because I end up feeling tied up in knots worrying that I phrase things badly but your post is brilliant.

Thanks for that post, QueenStromba, I complete agree. Feminism has always been very important to me and I feel betrayed and angry at what is happening at the moment.

Juggling, no you cannot be a member of the Labour Party and any other party that runs candidates against Labour, or support any party that does so, according to the rule book (and hence all the kerfuffles recently). I checked this as am considering leaving Labour to join WEP but the trans issue is crucial for me.

Wholly support the sentiment of your post QueenStromba, I have so many concerns about this and as WEP founding member was severely disappointed to see that retweet of the Tara Hudson petition - I felt they weren't representing me on the issue and had chosen to support an individual transwomen's desire to be 'recognised as a woman' over the rights of all women prisoners to a sex-segregated space whilst incarcerated. Tara could have been kept safe from male violence in a segregation or vulnerable prisoners unit within the male prison estate, moving her to a women's prison in her current, fully functioning male bodied state, is setting a dangerous precedent and is the thin end of the wedge. WEP should be standing up for women on this issue and speaking out to safeguard safe spaces for women in these circumstances.

I echo QueenStromba

Crucial for me too. I am concerned about the rights of trans people but I am also very unhappy about how the issue is used as a stick to attack women. I cannot have anything to do with a party that adds its voice to the shouts of bigot and TERF against women for simply wanting to meet with other women, or for holding the 'wrong' view about what womanhood is. So before I get any more involved with the WEP I need to know this is not going to happen.

More applause for your post, Queen. Thanks for raising the more extreme ramifications of allowing 'woman' to be redefined by male-bodied people.

These are serious and, of course, send alarming ripples through all areas of life.

I can't support a women's party that hasn't clarified its definition of women.

TheCountess, I agree. For me, feminism has always been about women's struggle not to be defined or oppressed by or because of their biology, at the same time as recognising that biology is part of being a woman and having their needs met.

I am confused about the party's decision not to have policies that don't pertain to equality. Firstly, equality is important in every sphere of life, and secondly, how can I vote for a party that doesn't, for instance, have a foreign policy. Does the WEP want to get into power? (How can they if they don't want to address all the issues a government has to handle?) Or do they view themselves as a protest party that wants to force the ruling party to work with them?

Agree with Queen. Seem WEP is unclear of the difference between gender and biological sex.

(Also, while your post is excellent Queen, I think the Nobel prize for courage thing isn't true.)

Thank you for that excellent post Queen. I am already a member of WEP but have been questioning that status since the transgender issue arose recently. As a member, I intend to highlight this thread & your post in particular & see what response I get.

The response I get I think will determine if I remain a member.

There is no such thing as the Nobel Prize for Courage. Jenner did win the Arthur Ashe Courage Award this year.

The name is a bit nonsensical to me. 'Women's Equality Party' implies they only want equality for women, which doesn't make sense. A better name would just be 'The Equality Party.' It's a bit 1984 - 'some animals are more equal than others'

Yes, a bit Animal farm. All women equal, except transwomen who trump all.

They are pro equality for women, so I really fail to see why the name is a problem.

Oops pressed send too soon. It doesn't imply to me that WE are anti equality for men, or want women to be above men - just that WE want women to have equality with men.

I'm starting to see really what WE have done with the "we are WE" thing there, and brava, I hope some PR person got due credit for that!

Whoops I meant Animal Farm - thanks howtorebuild!

You had your quote right!