Feminism chat for right wingers

[LeslieKnopefan]

Wondered if anyone else who is on the right like myself (see myself as centre right) wanted to chat about feminism.

I noticed there was a chat going for those in the Labour Party and thought it might be nice for anyone else like myself who is on the right but see them self as a feminist.

To introduce myself to begin... I’m in my mid 30s and always been right wing for as long as I can remember and am an active member of the Tory Party. I didn’t until recently see myself as a feminist because I always had negative connotations about the word and felt it wasn’t an issue that effected me.

But now that I’m older I’ve realised that feminism is a broad church and it is an issue that I’m not only interested in but actually there has been times in my life where being a woman has held me back or where I have been judged in a way that a man wouldn’t have been judged.

The areas that I’m currently most interested in are trans issues and how the Conservative party will deal with the many grey areas that trans rights brings with it.

I’m also concerned about the way we raise girls (and boys!!) such as the seperation of toys and the pinkness of everything for girls that we didn’t see when I was growing up. I know myself that I will say to little girls how pretty they look but wouldn’t say that to a boy, I am trying to stop myself saying such things but I realise how ingrained this is.

Finally, an issue that hasn’t really changed since I was growing up is the idea that men that have many sexual partners are great whilst women are sluts or slags. Again, I can’t say I’ve always been innocent of this especially at school where it seemed to be the norm to talk badly of girls who had lost their virginity but not boys.

Anyway that’s enough from me right now. If there is anyone else on the right here who wishes to join in please do :)

Becket: She was the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party under John Smith from 1992 to 1994, and briefly served as Leader of the Labour Party after Smith died suddenly

And Harman had the same role between Brown and Miliband

So both were caretaker leaders - neither had the clout to actually do anything, and neither were elected leaders

men are facilitated by women to progress in their careers , even in ways we might not have thought about, and long mat leave is the start of that.

Yy, IfNot. That's exactly how I feel (and my personal experience)

men are facilitated by women to progress in their careers , even in ways we might not have thought about, and long mat leave is the start of that.

Also my personal experience.

My husband took equal responsibility for parenting & family stuff, including housework etc.

We both shared the responsibilities when the kids were sick, dropping off/picking up from nursery etc, and we took turns in prioritising our respective careers (he would take priority for a stretch until a promotion, then I would and so on).
As a result, we both progressed & we both were involved in the daily drudgery too.

We have since split up, and he is still a huge & active part of the kids lives - not just 'taking his turn' every other week, but in the daily minutiae of their lives too.

He says that his experiences of being equally involved & responsible & of having to make career sacrifices along the way have shaped how he is now that he is in a high position, and that he is 'different' to many of his peers.
He has a better understanding of how women (especially single mothers) have to juggle everything, and is active in facilitating their needs & is intolerant of the men who bitch about their female coworkers 'getting special treatment' (those men are usually being fully facilitated by their wives).

I have 2 boys, and they are socialised to this set up - I expect that they'll follow their dad's (& my) lead and will follow the same pattern.

“So both were caretaker leaders - neither had the clout to actually do anything, and neither were elected leaders”

Still 2 more than the LibDems who, in their various guises, have been going a lot longer than the Labour party.

If having 2 female leaders really is an example of showing how pro-women a Party is, surely you should be calling out the LibDems, not dismissing the Labour women leaders.

Thanks for starting this thread - going to go back and read in detail but just wanted to add to this:

As well as women2win....

We should also respect Mrs may for her work on modern slavery. She drove that legislation and that work. I hope it will be her legacy rather than the shitshow that is Brexit. Some hope

When Cameron resigned he took full credit for marriage equality and Lynne Featherstone - the architect of the law - immediately came out to say that it was TM who was instrumental in getting it through, not DC.

If having 2 female leaders really is an example of showing how pro-women a Party is, surely you should be calling out the LibDems, not dismissing the Labour women leaders.

That was not what I said in my original post about the 2-0 leaders.

It was a simple comment about contradictions. Having the two leaders is in spite of not being particularly pro-women. I think it's interesting to try and understand why. The dame applies for the Lib Dems, for sure

It was a simple comment about contradictions. Having the two leaders is in spite of not being particularly pro-women. I think it's interesting to try and understand why. The dame applies for the Lib Dems, for sure

Exactly. Same here. I've said it before on the thread, but I'm not a right winger, so not the right person to make the case for right wing feminism. But it's surely worth thinking about how history and RL have played out because of / despite ideological underpinnings of respective parties.

As an aside, though, being party leader is obviously important but really not the same as being PM. Only the most politically nerdy young girls will know who is the Leader of the Opposition (never mind the leader of the smaller parties), whereas most children will know the PM. The opportunities for being an inspiration to the next generation are somewhat limited as a party leader vs actual PM

Apart from the shock at the misogyny shown,

Please don't throw accusations like that at me. I filled out a couple of alternative explanations to show that your conclusion was an assumption on your part. It's not misogynistic to say that there may be different tendencies between men and women.

And I'd kind of like an apology.

Imposed by law, left for employers to implement it as they please, or just allowed and see what happens?

This is what I've been asking you.

@Moussemoose. You've just snipped out three lines from a multi-paragraph entry and called it "Britannica's definition". Here is Britannica's entry:

www.britannica.com/topic/social-democracy

Here is part that you conveniently skipped:
"In the second half of the 20th century, there emerged a more moderate version of the doctrine, which generally espoused state regulation, rather than state ownership, of the means of production and extensive social welfare programs."

And here is Merriam-Webster:
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20democracy

^"1: a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means
2: a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practice"^

And here is Wikipedia:

"Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes; and is often associated with the set of socioeconomic policies that became prominent in Northern and Western Europe—particularly the Nordic model in the Nordic countries—during the latter half of the 20th century."

and...

"The rise of Keynesianism in the Western world during the Cold War influenced the development of social democracy.[108] The attitude of social democrats towards capitalism changed as a result of the rise of Keynesianism. Capitalism was acceptable to social democrats only if capitalism's typical crises could be prevented and if mass unemployment could be averted: Keynesianism was believed to be able to provide this.[109] Social democrats came to accept the market for reasons of efficiency and endorsed Keynesianism as that was expected to reconcile democracy and capitalism."

For reasons unknown to me but presumed ideological you are trying to deny that the Scandinavian countries are capitalist and that Social Democracy is capitalist; you are wedding yourself to an antiquated definition that is known to be antiquated even by your own source (you just cut out parts that conflicted). Please don't be one of those posters who simply cannot accept they were wrong. If you genuinely believe that the Scandinavian countries are "moving towards socialism" as you claim, then they've been at it for a very long time and been increasing privatisation whilst they're doing so. Which would be a rather odd thing. So even if, in contradiction to modern definitions we accepted your version, you'd only be proving the Scandinavian countries weren't social democracies in your own opinion.

Now, I can't imagine this is interesting to many others.

Mirialis I do believe Teresa may to be a fundamentally decent woman. I think, over time, that perception may become more general. She has had so much crap thrown at her - I cannot think of a single man, right or left, from all her critics who would do better. Jeremy? Boris? Jacob?? Don’t make me laugh

I don't like May because as Home Secretary she was very authoritarian and brought in legislation I think is dangerous. But as far as Brexit, that's not her fault and actually she tried to stop it. She's been handed an impossible situation and is doing her best with it. History will remember her more kindly, imo.

Even her disastrous calling of the General Election is only appreciated as such with hindsight. Nearly all the polls predicted a positive outcome for the Tories and she needed a larger majority in order to deal with rebels in her own party. It was tactically the right thing to do.

She's an intelligent and competent politician who regrettably has the people skills of a stoat.

Tended not to have the qualities that suited them for those jobs.

So.... no, no apologies. Still think it's misogynistic.

"Those jobs" are top jobs that women have taken in other countries. It's not an opinion for a small number of jobs, but across all top jobs available. While women candidates may not have the required qualities for one given post. It's unlikely that women in general don't have the qualities for top jobs.

So, maybe you'd like to rephrase that sentence, instead.

Imposed by law, left for employers to implement it as they please, or just allowed and see what happens?

This is what I've been asking you.

I've already said what I think about it. I did post that it needs to be imposed by law, but the right tends to be for less regulation. That is why I'm interested in knowing what right-wingers are for and, if left for employers, for example, how do they see equality developing in practice, considering the last few decades.

Sorry, lots of typos and bad grammar.

I did post that it needs to be imposed by law, but the right tends to be for less regulation. That is why I'm interested in knowing what right-wingers are for and, if left for employers, for example, how do they see equality developing in practice, considering the last few decades

Caveat: not a right winger. But I would imagine that the argument goes along the lines of the market / open competition should allow women to succeed because companies have an interest in ensuring that they hire the best person for the job and promoting talent, and the law of averages says that a good proportion of that is in the female half of the population.

It obviously completely overlooks the systemic and structural issues that hamper women's progression at work, which is where - IMO - legislation is needed to give business more than a nudge in the right direction

Would a tax regime that levied more favourable business rates on companies that had a female CEO / majority of board / majority of employees be something that a right wing government would support?

Thinking out loud here. It's not saying "you must not do this" (discriminate against women, in this example). It's not dictating how a company must operate (companies could still continue with their male dominated board, but pay higher tax). It simply incentivises companies that behave in a particular way

I'd really like to see a right-wing position on this. So far, very little.

A position I'd support would be 6 months parental leave on full pay for both sexes.
(SMP paid for 12 months to either sex too).

In practice that would mean that employers have to make up the difference between SMP & the actual wage for the 6 months, then the wage drops to just SMP for the remaining 6.

That would immediately make a level playing field for both sexes at the interview stage as women aren't viewed as the default parent, and also removes the 'my husband earns more so we couldn't afford for him to take parental leave' trap that many women find themselves in.

Parents can then have a proper choice wrt sharing parental leave.

My apologies to every one else

OldmanOfTheWeb

Thanks for those definitions that proved my point.

My statements

The key feature of social democracy is that the state intervenes to ensure equality

Is correct and is proved so by the quote you provide.

1: a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means
2: a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practice

You said my point was wrong because:

No. That would as well define a communist state as a social democracy

My point was that social democracy is where the state intervenes, you said no that is communism. You then provided the second reference that proves my point.

You also reference wiki, but really we are tying to be serious here.

As to the relationship between social democracy and capitalism it is very complex. Until the last 20 ( ish) years the Nordic countries were true social democracies. It is true a good argument could be made to say that is no longer the case although many Scandinavians I know would take exception.

True social democracy is a move towards socialism so coexists with but aims to reject capitalism.

Please don't be one of those posters that can't admit they are a patronising dick and discussing complex issues in a thread means nuance is missed.

Would a tax regime that levied more favourable business rates on companies that had a female CEO / majority of board / majority of employees be something that a right wing government would support?

I am probably now right of centre.I would not support that.

Using the tax system to encourage social change is a tactic usually used by the centre and left.

The only example I can think of where the right support tax benefits for social action is what was referred to as " married mans allowance" that has long since disappeared but some Tory MPs do sometimes mention it longingly.

That is why I'm interested in knowing what right-wingers are for and, if left for employers, for example, how do they see equality developing in practice, considering the last few decades.

But labour force equality has been steadily getting better over recent decades, on every measure. In 1971, women's employment rate was 53% - at the end of last year it was 71%. It has flattened out or dipped a couple of times around recessions as you would expect, but it is on the right trajectory. The gender pay gap for FT workers has fallen from 17% in 1997 to 9% in 2017. Globally, the number of women in senior roles is at an all time high. Everything is actually getting better - not at the rate at which we would like it to, but major societal change like this isn't quick or easy.

Would a tax regime that levied more favourable business rates on companies that had a female CEO / majority of board / majority of employees be something that a right wing government would support?

Generally no - this would distort competition. The way I think this should be achieved is a mix of social pressure and throwing down the gauntlet to industry - asking them to challenge themselves and look at hiring more women as a way to improve their competitiveness.

Everything is actually getting better

But because of what?
I posted earlier that the two equal pay laws were passed under Labour governments.

What positive changes have been brought about without laws?

What has the right brought to the table to improve things for women or to equality?
What was it proposed in the last tory manifesto?

throwing down the gauntlet to industry - asking them to challenge themselves and look at hiring more women as a way to improve their competitiveness.

How will that work in practice?
How does hiring more women improve competitiveness and increase profits?

So, maybe you'd like to rephrase that sentence, instead.

No, I would not. And throwing around personal attacks isn't welcome.

I've already said what I think about it. I did post that it needs to be imposed by law, but the right tends to be for less regulation.

Yes, you said that already, but what you haven't answered is WHAT you think needs to be imposed by law. A vague answer like "equality" doesn't explain anything. I want to know what legal measures that don't exist you think should be brought in.

Would a tax regime that levied more favourable business rates on companies that had a female CEO / majority of board / majority of employees be something that a right wing government would support?

Almost certainly not. Firstly, it's discriminatory. Secondly, it's harmful in that it's inherently anti-meritocratic. Thirdly, it's anti-competitive. If I start a business and am the CEO and a competitor starts a business and they are a woman, you're suggesting that my competitor should get tax breaks for being female!

But because of what?

Well if you're going to go by historical analysis - capitalism. We have more gender equality in the West than almost at any point in history. And that correlates with the rise of capitalism. If you look at regions of the world that have the best gender equality again, that correlates closely with capitalism. The countries with the highest gender equality in the world - Scandinavian countries - are capitalist. I mean, you can like it or not like it, but the correlation is staggering.