Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Sandi Toksvig and Politics

70 replies

sausageeggbacon11 · 30/04/2015 13:07

So Sanda Toksvig has had enough and has decided to put together a feminist party. Which considering MB has started his and the Pirate Party and Sexual Freedom Party are already in place does the party stand a chance? Or like MB and the others is it just going to try and highlight issues?

I do wonder if anyone on the boards will end up standing for the general elections in 2020?

Well the world got interesting read more here

OP posts:
walde · 30/04/2015 13:14

Wow, I'm very interested to hear this. I posted about this a few months ago, asking if anyone thought there was room for a women's party. Nobody responde. :-( So this is exciting news!

Original poster
sausageeggbacon11 · 30/04/2015 13:23

I must admit I am a bit Hmm because I thought only British, Commonwealth and Irish Citizens could stand. I guess Ms Toksvig has obtained citizenship if she intends to stand herself. I wonder if w can get her to stand against MB where ever he is standing in 2020.

OP posts:
Yops · 30/04/2015 14:27

Hmm. Does 'Equality Party' = 'Feminist Party'? I think some feminists might disagree. I didn't see her mention feminism in that interview - has she elsewhere?

YDdraigGoch · 30/04/2015 14:28

Who is MB? Confused

INickedAName · 30/04/2015 14:46

MB is the leader of Justice for Men and Boys. He has a google alert on his name so he gets MB.

YDdraigGoch · 30/04/2015 14:51

Thank you. Now off to google "Justice for Men and Boys"!

Guineapig99 · 30/04/2015 15:14

I love her. I'd vote for them right now if I could.

Original poster
sausageeggbacon11 · 30/04/2015 15:42

Sandi has said on several occasions on QI she is a feminist so I would see the equality as bringing us more in line with men than the other way around.

OP posts:
BuffyNeverBreaks · 30/04/2015 16:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BlueKarou · 30/04/2015 16:42

This is very interesting, and definitely something I intend on looking further into over the next five years.

I do think a lot of people will be put off by the name. Wrongly so, but I think that the general opinion of Feminsm, and the Womens' Equality movement is looked upon as a joke (primarily by the people who benefit the most from the current equality. Might be me being cynical, but I half-wonder whether they're going to lose supporters who might have agreed with their policies but are scared off by the name. And that's precisely why it's important

Also, I find it very telling that the Beeb have deemed it an Entertainment and Arts story, rather than in one of the more 'sensible' topics. Again, might be my cynicism though.

BitOfFun · 30/04/2015 16:53

I think the whole idea is brilliant. I might start a local branch myself.

TheTravellingLemon · 30/04/2015 16:57

She was interviewed on woman's hour this morning. I love her, she's fab, but I do think she is being a touch optimistic if she thinks any MPs are going to defect to her party.

I also think the name is a bit of a mistake. It's like the Green Party. It just sounds like a pressure group and not a serious political party. I also think the name will put potential voters and candidates off.

That said, I do think there is a growing tide in this direction, so who knows what 2020 will bring. I think feminism is starting to mean something different to a lot of people. Whereas it used to seem to be about equal pay, it's now far more all encompassing. I'm very interested to see where she is able to take this.

Original poster
sausageeggbacon11 · 30/04/2015 18:18

I think it will be a pressure party for the first couple of elections, given that MBs mob are a pressure group, the Sexual Freedom Party is a pressure group and the Greens were a pressure group. But the Greens have become more mainstream through the acceptance of them over the years. I think any new party could only play a pressure role at first. There are not going to be any Martin Bell type reactions.... unless Al Murray beats Farage (that would make me happy).

OP posts:
Greythorne · 30/04/2015 18:29

Sandi herself said that the one thing this election has shown is that 'fringe' parties (UKIP, Greens) can influence the main parties and lead and shape the debate. I think that is what she / they are aiming for, rather than getting dozens of MPs elected.

lagartaroja · 30/04/2015 18:32

Gah! You've named MB...

Really interested in this. And yes, it's a bit crap that it's reported in Entertainment and Arts Hmm

YonicScrewdriver · 30/04/2015 22:06

Martin Bell isn't MB. Martin Bell was a newsreader who stood as an anti sleaze candidate in a white suit and won a surprise landslide.

lagartaroja · 01/05/2015 14:53

I stand corrected. Really sorry.

Merse · 01/05/2015 16:57

I worry about the name too, but think the ideas behind it are superb and love her. I'd vote for her. She was eminently sensible on Woman's Hour talking about her reasons/aims. Have 'liked' the FB page, but apparently that is all one can do so far (website not up & running).

PuffinsAreFictitious · 01/05/2015 17:13

You can also email them so you get on the mailing list.

Merse · 01/05/2015 17:16

Thanks Puffin Will do that. Very interested….

Blistory · 01/05/2015 18:32

I'm okay with the name. I've had to accept that the term feminist alienates some women even whilst they support the idea of women and equality. I rather spend time in actively doing something with them rather than argue about whether they are a feminist.

I also think it's important that something in politics, be it a movement or political party, doesn't shy away from naming the issue. In this case, women and equality. If it alienates men, I can't bring myself to care. A man who is truly a feminist ally will get why it's necessary and not an attack on him and as for the others, I'm so far beyond trying to convince myself that men will get it if I can just get them to listen.

Original poster
sausageeggbacon11 · 01/05/2015 20:29

We are at a cross roads, if we don't do something the fact that MB will be getting a message over (no matter how anal that message is) will mean that somewhere a party may take on board one of those messages.

And having seen the 50:50 campaign I get annoyed that there is a insistence on quotas, if we are good enough we don't need to be protected... if we want a meritocracy then everything has to be above board and no one being shielded from having to be the best. We want a meritocracy but only on our conditions doesn't sit well with me. Whatever happened in the past equality means we all start at the same level. I know that we have had issues but to compound those issues by avoiding people rising on merit denies us the challenge to be the best we can. The top scientist in NASA is female and did it on her own abilities. We need to show we can do it without having protection or we won't be taken seriously.

I spoke to a friend about Labour's Rachel Reeves who was protected and parachuted into a safe seat. No matter how good or bad she is people will question could she have got to where she is if she hadn't of been given the seat without having a challenge.

OP posts:
Merse · 01/05/2015 20:36

Sausageegg I am completely with you on quotas. I tend to find I am in the minority on this issue so it is reassuring to hear another feminist who is against them. Like you, I 'get' the reasons many people think they are necessary, but I think the downside risk (the Rachel Reeves effect) is too great.

My problem with the name is merely that it implies that it will ONLY look at issues affecting women - which is fine for a movement, but not a political party. A bit like the Greens who are having to do a lot of work proving that they have costed policies about issues other than the environment.

However, my enthusiasm for the new party overrides my reticence about the name. Exciting times!

BuffyNeverBreaks · 01/05/2015 20:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Merse · 01/05/2015 20:49

I agree it's a sad thing. And wrong - totally wrong. And the pace of change is frustratingly glacial. All that. However, personally I would rather put up with that less than ideal scenario than anyone ever be able to wonder/imply/assume that a woman got her job because of positive discrimination rather than merit.

I think the best way to tackle this is with hard financial logic. There have been plenty of studies (wish I could cite them here - can dig out!!) showing that companies with more women in senior mgmt positions (including Board) do better. As in - are more profitable, enjoy better performing share prices, make better investments. In my view, that is a far more powerful argument to win over the doubters/reluctant. And it's easy to prove - there is so much data that support it. Appeal to their wallets and they start to sit up and take notice.

Swipe left for the next trending thread