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 :)

My point was that social democracy is where the state intervenes, you said no that is communism

Please don't misquote me. I said your statement would as well describe communism as it would social democracy. I.e. that your analysis is superficial and deliberately strips away the capitalism part of the definition.

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

Ah, you mean No True Scottish Democracy. As already proven, you are wedded to antiquated definitions that are rejected by Britannica, Meriam-Webster and Wikipedia. Please let this go.

@OldmanOfTheWeb
Saying that one comment was misogynistic isn't a personal attack.

I want to know what legal measures that don't exist you think should be brought in.

Nice attempt at turning it around.
You seem to think that the right has solutions to achieve equality. I'm trying to understand what they are and how they can achieve equality in practice.
Particularly without legislation.

This is a thread about the right and feminism and I'm curious about. But so far I'm not convinced that the right offers any real solutions.
I'm all ears.

More apologies to every one else.

OldmanOfTheWeb antiquated usually refers to a millennia or so. As social democracy is a term that became common in the twentieth century that is an incorrect description, perhaps superficial. Or perhaps you are having a discussion on an Internet forum and choose not to put every nuance in every comment.

I won't paraphrase - here is your quote:

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

You were responding to this point.

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

Not the only feature, the key feature. Communism is defined by far, far more than intervening to ensure equality. So your comment that state intervention to ensure equality would be defined as communism is incorrect.

It is moving "from capitalism" so it exists within in it but aims to move away. I don't think social democracy has changed, it is argued by some, the Nordic countries have moved to the right. The definition remains the countries have moved.

Also, you feel it is very important to define social democracy very tightly but throw 'capitalism' around with no definition. I'm not bothered it makes for a simple understanding but you really must demonstrate consistency.

Also in relation to gender equality and capitalism happening at the same time. This is a mistake that a simple analysis of history can lead to. Just because two things happen at the same time does automatically mean there is cause and effect. The rise of militant Islam has happened at the same time as the rise of rap music that does not mean one caused the other.

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.

What is it about their capitalism that has contributed towards equality, as opposed to laws and social support?

And yet, Scandinavian countries are not THAT equal...

blogs.helsinki.fi/virtuallynordic/2017/03/08/a-womans-heaven-or-hell-gender-equality-in-the-nordic-countries/

"Well, are the Nordic countries a woman’s heaven or hell? Probably neither of it. Gender equality in the Nordic countries appears very much on the surface but a deeper look discovers many problems. Surely, Nordic women live a better life than a lot of their sisters in the entire world. And yes, also men experience inequalities. Inequalities appear not only through gender but also through race, class, disability and numerous categories. However, the lesson learned from this brief and rather incomplete discussion of gender equality in the Nordic countries is that labour market participation does not create equality between the sexes. To provide equality women need equal opportunities and not any opportunities in the public sphere. Furthermore, the state must also protect women in the private sphere. The high number of cases of violence against women in the Nordic countries are disgraceful for countries which claim to be the most gender equal in the world. Gender equality is not a pick and choose but comes as a package of all women in all areas being equal to all men, and here the Nordic countries surely still have a lot of catching up to do."

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?

I can't see any connection between hiring more women and increasing competitiveness. I have never employed, or not employed, a candidate on the basis of their sex.

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?

I can't see any connection between hiring more women and increasing competitiveness. I have never employed, or not employed, a candidate on the basis of their sex.

Because if you exclude half of the population from working at your firm (or if you have hiring practices or a working culture that de facto exclude women) then you are for certain shooting yourself in the foot, because you are excluding half of the talent that could be working for you. Companies which employ roughly 50:50 men:women are very likely to have competitive advantage over those which don't because it indicates they are recruiting from the whole talent pool. It is bad business to employ mediocre men in place of high performing women! If your employee gender balance is wildly out of kilter then that is a sign your company probably isn't as competitive as it should be. Isn't this obvious?

It's the same in any field - the reason we need to achieve gender parity in STEAM fields is not just because that's nice for women but because it is bad for those fields to lose up to half of their potential top talent. It means we are not doing the best science and innovation that we could be.

Because if you exclude half of the population from working at your firm (or if you have hiring practices or a working culture that de facto exclude women) then you are for certain shooting yourself in the foot, because you are excluding half of the talent that could be working for you

I assume "you" is general not me- because if it is "me" you are making a ridiculous assumption.

I don't actually buy into the idea that employers generally prefer a mediocre man over a competent or a good woman. My experience of being an employee and an employer is, bizarrely, employers want the best candidate (or occasionally the least worst candidate).

I will not however employ a mediocre woman over a competent man.

If your employee gender balance is wildly out of kilter then that is a sign your company probably isn't as competitive as it should be. Isn't this obvious?

But that was not what the post being queried said. The professional staff in my company are I would guess pretty much 50/50. There is no reason to suppose employing more women will improve competitiveness.

It is bad business to employ mediocre men in place of high performing women!

Fully agree.
And yet many companies do. For lots of different reasons: perceptions, culture, bias, maternity leave and children...
Or pay less.

It's a well known phenomenon that women have to be much more competent than men to get the same recognition.

How do we change this?

But that was not what the post being queried said. The professional staff in my company are I would guess pretty much 50/50. There is no reason to suppose employing more women will improve competitiveness.

I think you're interpreting what I say rather uncharitably. I was saying "employ more women to improve competitiveness" in the context of a discussion about "what would the right wing approach be to increasing the number of women in the labour force". But if anyone has misunderstood, to be clear, I'm not advocating all firms employing e.g. 90% women as a way to improve competitiveness. That clearly wouldn't be effective. Nor am I advocating positive discrimination in favour of mediocre women. I'm saying that if your (general!) workforce is e.g. 70% men, that should be a sign you are clearly not recruiting ALL of the best people that you could be. Industries like that (and academia) should be challenged to think seriously about what that means for them.

If you Lass are open to recruiting the best from the widest talent pool possible then great. More firms need to be like that. Sadly many industries are shooting themselves in the foot by not considering hiring women or changing their working culture to make it more attractive to women, because they don't value women's talents or (wrongly) think they are doing just fine as an all boys club. I recognise that as a feminist.

Industries like that (and academia) should be challenged to think seriously about what that means for them.

Are right wing parties doing this?
Or who challenges these companies?
How will a certain type of men relinquish privileges if that means losing power to women, including at home?

It sounds like the type of utopia that the left is often accused of.

If all the men that can be convinced already have, how do we take the final steps?

And I remember that those famous Scandinavian countries aren't that great and haven't left it to the good will of capitalist company owners of directors.

Interesting point of view from a conservative feminist.
And some interesting proposals, which I bet the left would be happy to take up instead.
I'd love to see some right wing leadership on this.
www.independent.co.uk/voices/conservative-party-feminism-women-carers-children-policy-economics-left-out-a8040081.html

I dunno Lweji. Depressingly I don't think there is a single party in the country that is prepared to stand up and defend the market economy or wealth creation.

The PM may be hawkish on security stuff but economically she is barely a Tory. I don't think the party fully appreciated what it was getting into when they chose her as leader.

If we get to the next election and the Tories can't offer any more to voters than their own version of a magic money tree then they and we are in big trouble.