The hard left's problem with women

[KarlosKKrinkelbeim]

Looking at front page of the Times listing those labour MPs being targeted by momentum for deselection and idly wondering; why do most of them seem to be women - and in particular, women with string track records on feminist issues? I mean Stella Creasy for gods sake? I'm not a labour voter I admit but how could anyone vote for a party who deselected a woman of her calibre?
Is it me or do these people have a problem?

"being written"

I think liberal centrist politics has plenty misogyny too (and the right obvs) but the hard left seem to really dislike women. It feels like they'll be around for a bit so would be good to work out what to do about it, whether by reaching out to young women and/or other means.

Re the clamping down on anti semitism, he did get shami chakrabarti to conduct that fearless investigation. Then give her a peerage within weeks of her giving them a clean bill of health
Truly, they are beyond parody.

It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious, wouldn't it?

*"been writing" engage bloody brain woman

I wonder what's next - saying JC's supporters have a problem with antisemitism and misogyny seems to have done bog all apart from result in Chakrabarti's peerage.

JC doesn't care, although if accusations of misogyny affected his popularity he might lurch into action.

It's not just Labour women getting attacked though.

I was reading the Times in waitrose whilst having my free coffee (get me and my middle classless) and there were Tory female MP's talking about the threats they received. Tried looking for it online but can't find it…

It's misogynism wherever it comes from. It's from the left AND the right. It's everywhere- it's not a 'hard left' or 'hard right' problem it is a massive problem full stop.

…it's just the left wing misogynism gets picked up on more by the press. E.g. I only learnt about Phillip Sodding Davies on here, and most people I know in RL had never heard of him. Despite him being a despicable misogynist, racist, homophobe and ablist to boot.

I'm not saying that Labour misogyny is ok- it's not. It's just not unique.

I think it's part of a general self-righteous, aggressive dynamic against anyone who dares to be different. I've witnessed a lot of hatred for anyone voting Green from JC supporters. I've been accused of being responsible for killing people because I didn't vote Labour (in a Tory constituency with a 15k majority!). They are telling people what to think and get abusive if you don't agree. It's from women as well as men unfortunately. They don't seem to understand that behaving in this way makes me even less likely to vote for them as I don't think you can create a better world by bossing people around and abusing them. We know that they aren't into cooperation, at a national level anyway, they just want to do it their way. I was pleased JC was elected as leader initially but now I'm going right off the whole thing and I think they are jeopardising future elections because they won't support PR.

It's interesting that it's the Tories (much as I dislike them) who've produced two female prime ministers. The old Left has very patriarchal roots with unions, working men's clubs etc- not always of course but there's a tendency.

cuir - no, I agree. Labour's roots are not egalitarian, and Momentum (who are in the ascendency in the party) very much reflect this.

I think the difference is that we don't really expect the right wing to do much for minority groups, so we are surprised when they do things like produce two female prime ministers. We expect the left to be the standard bearer of equal opportunities, so it's a shock when we realise that there are very deep veins of misogyny (and anti-semitism) running through the harder end of it.

That's true- it is interesting that the Tories produced 2 female prime ministers- and should shame the other parties.

However, the women that they chose and their personalities…I don't mean to generalise (out of a population of 2) but they really are people who are just not nice at all/just plain weird. I'm not tarring all Tories…I don't agree with all Baroness Warsi's politics but she comes across as a normal human being, as does Ruth Davidson. You can imagine having a good discussion with them, unlike Thatcher/May. It's like they chose women who are far removed from normal for both men and women on purpose, that these were the sort of women that are ok to lead the Party i.e. very unlike most women.

One thing that really needs to stop is the utter bullshit that Thatcher/May aren't real women (insert utterly ridiculous reason) and therefore it doesn't count that the Labour Party haven't had a female leader. It is ludicrous that the Labour Party have only had white men running the gig.

It's like they chose women who are far removed from normal for both men and women on purpose, that these were the sort of women that are ok to lead the Party i.e. very unlike most women

Just stop this nonsense.

What are "normal women"? Are they the same as "real women"? (And I'm not referring to any trans issues there but the sort of drivel Dove peddles about "real women") or "Most women"?

I read masses of stuff on MN (not just FWR) where I just think this bears no relation whatsoever to my life or anything I am interested in. (E.g all bride/wedding/fretting about Christmas/ Mother's day/ threads)

None of this makes me or the other posters or Thatcher or May less or more real or less or more normal.

Right on cue, the favourite theory of the misogynist left pops up - Mrs thatcher wasn't really like a woman, you know. Because women are never determined, competitive, ruthless, desirous of power - no, none of those things. If they are like that, they are aberrant, and can be insulted as much as we like.
Why do you believe this crap?

Creasy voted for airstrikes against Syria, which made a lot of people very angry. Her constituents protested peacefully outside her office, and she allowed that to be reported as an angry mob outside her house. When that claim was refuted by the protestors she was slow and equivocal in her response to the media. Some media commentators hinted (or said outright) that she was behind the original angry mob story.

She then told the media that her office had been "vandalized" by the protestors. It had not.

It swiftly became a story about poor Stella, victim of misogyny/bullying, rather than a story about protesting the Syria vote. She's a spinmaster.

It's this kind of weaselfuckery, rather than cross-party working on the recent abortion amendment, which has blotted her copybook.

A lot of people don't like SC. Talk of deselecting her for at least 18 months now, though I think she's safe now after the abortion win.

The people of her constituency were more than happy to re-elect her so there should be no talk of deselecting her.

She was the Labour candidate though, Queen. That's the point. Most people who want to deselect these candidates will have voted for them - because they're party members. That's why they want a different candidate - one who better represents their views. A more socialist candidate, generally.

What about everyone else in her constituency that aren't labour members but voted for her? Do they not count?

If they de-select her I will never vote Labour again.

I expect some voted for her and some voted for Corbyn, iyswim (although in the UK we vote for MP not party). We never know the breakdown on these things unless some analysis is done.

I expect lots of people held their nose and voted for their party candidate (the Tory Philip Davies, for example).

Why would you never vote Labour again without SC particularly? Are you historically a Labour voter?

Generally vote Labour, yes. I'm not prepared to turn a blind eye to the misogyny anymore.

I am a Labour voter but I am not blind to the misogynistic streak in the hard left/Trade Union wings of the party. You will note the MPs they target are women or a black man. There is a white, working class male element in the party personified by certain Trades Unions and the working mans club culture that really struggles with admitting anyone that isn't like them. They have a very traditional view of the work place that doesn't help women who want a more flexible employment pattern.Remember when dinner ladies had to take a case against their own TU because it had protected 'the full time working mans' interest at the expense of the female, part time workers?

I think the Tories have had more women in positions of power because their shire tory backbone is used to women magistrates and JPs and other leadership roles, so the traditional grass roots find it easier to accept women and their are more routes to leadership skills for women.

Huge generalisations obviously, but an element of truth.

The traditional trade union Labour party type is not running the labour party anymore.

Agreed Lass, it's misogynistic nonsense to say Thatcher and May weren't/aren't "normal women", in fact it's a bit shocking

The Tories also produced a Jewish prime minister in Benjamin Disraeli and John Major, the son of a vaudeville star turned garden gnome maker.

I too get enraged by the "Thatcher got where she was because she was really a man on the inside" attitude. No, women can be all sorts of things - nurturing and caring, the re-incarnation of Atilla the Hun (my personal view of Thatcher), doesn't stop them being women. I think it does women a massive disservice to pretend we don't come in a wide range of personalities, good and bad.

And yes, my own experience of trade union politics is that there's a certain type of male trade unionist who doesn't give a shit about women - we should be bringing tea and sandwiches to the men on the picket lines, not campaigning for equality in the workplace in their eyes. I have met far too many of them not to have come to the conclusion that the left has feet of clay on women's rights.

(NB with the right, while they do have their Margaret Thatchers and Benjamin Disraelis and John Majors, the issue there is that such people are always thought to be "the exception that proves the rule" - that it doesn't generalise into a wider acknowledgement of structural inequalities in society. People who don't make it are deemed to have not made it because they were weak - "after all, look at [insert famous person from that background] - they made it, so you could have done if you'd just tried harder", not acknowledging that the person in question made it against the odds and that it was luck as well as talent, and, crucially, talent way in excess of what would be required of someone from inside the establishment.)

Re Stella Creasy :
The Guardian gives a slightly different slant on the story mentioned above about protesters targeting her house:
www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/dec/04/stella-creasy-crushes-story-about-protest-outside-her-house