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 :)

So did WWI and WWII.
It's kind of sad to see what it takes for women to become relevant in the workforce.

Still, it begs the question of why those men wouldn't (couldn't?) find the same jobs that their wives got.

Checking in
I’m actually politically homeless at the moment as I’m struggling to support the Tories due to Brexit.
I loathe Labour and Jeremy Corbin/momentum and think that they are the most dangerous thing to happen politically for a long time.
I actually voted Lib at the last election but mostly because I personally knew our local Lib candidate and he’s great ( didn’t win unfortunately)
The fact that Feminism seems to only belong to left wing women riles me though, you can be Right leaning and not an evil baby eater who wants to confine women to the kitchen so thank you for starting the thread

Regarding the "care" for the elderly on the Tory Manifesto:
It looks like tory voters didn't like it.
From the Telegraph itself.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/22/theresa-may-pressure-say-will-pay-social-care-u-turn-dementia/

Still not sure how that proposal addresses the issue of women being the ones who are also left holding the elder relative.

I wasn't arguing that different professions should be paid the same. I was pointing out that whereas men and women may be paid the same in the same profession, professions with female majorities tend to be paid less (be less valued) than male majority professions.

Well the suggestion was that the Tories need to do something about equal pay for equal work. You're talking about a whole different order of societal control if you're laying the above at their door. If women are free to choose their career then the above doesn't matter. And if they're not, then you're looking in the wrong place to fix it.

s18.postimg.org/6lv512xc9/women_in_stem.jpg

I wasn't arguing either that career gaps or part time should be considered as equal to continued or full time work. But, overall, they contribute towards the pay gap between men and women, even if strictly, there is equal pay for equal jobs.

Again then, this isn't a question of the Tories not having brought in equal pay legislation. I'm not sure what you expect the government to do about women having children. Stop it?

The rest is naive. Employers can easily argue cases for "different jobs", and it's fairly easy to support men over women in some jobs.

It's not naive. Listen, if I could cut my salary costs by only employing women don't you think I would? Do you think all these greedy capitalists you're picturing wouldn't say "Hey, I have to pay women less - hire more women!" Again, it's a matter for the courts on a case by case basis. What possible solution is there that changes that and is fair? Have the government produce a master list of 40,000 jobs and set national standard salaries? If you think you're being discriminated against either take it to court or threaten to leave. Either you're worth your salary or you're not and if the sole difference is your sex then a business will pay equally for equal value. To do otherwise is to lose money.

Then how many employees find it easy to get to court, or even question their employer about salaries? As you said, it has to be case by case, in court, so it's incredibly difficult to enforce simply by law.

It's literally one email invoking the 2010 Equalities Act. As I've already said. That begins the process. Hopefully (and usually) it will be resolved long before it gets to court. No company wants to go through an Equal Pay audit. If you have a genuine case it's overwhelmingly in the employer's interests to settle it before it goes further. IF you have a genuine case.

Equal pay for the same work by law certainly does not translate into no pay gap.

Nor should it.

And if you think a different outcome is ok, I'd ask why? Don't you think that the population should be fairly represented in Parliament?

I think it should be based on who the populace elect. Anything else is not democracy. Men and Women are not different species. I don't feel less represented by Theresa May than I did Cameron. Women are 51% of the population. If they want to vote for a male candidate, that's their choice. Just as if I want to vote for a female candidate that's mine.

Do you think men are good representatives of women?

It depends. Lily Madigan... not so much.

But again, the populace elects who it chooses. What better system is there? Some sort of bicameral system with a House for Women and a House for Men? Some sort of restrictions on who you can vote for? None of this sounds like an improvement to me.

Scandinavian countries have social democracy. Which is not all out capitalism. Nor all out socialism.

Scandinavian countries do not have "Social Democracy". They have free market capitalism with high taxes. Socialism is state ownership, not high taxes.

But here comes the question again. What has the right done to change men's behaviour?

What behaviour of men do you think it's the government's business to change? And what powers do you want to give our government that would enable it to do so? Sounds very authoritarian and sinister to me. We've already got them making calling a man "he" an imprisonable offence!

Regarding the "care" for the elderly on the Tory Manifesto:
It looks like tory voters didn't like it.

Rich voters across all parties didn't like it actually (unsurprisingly).
Regardless - it was a policy suggested by the Tory party, and it was a good one - more of your wealth protected and your house saved from compulsory sale until any other family residing there had also gone.
Less well off people were protected, and middle-wealth people would have benefitted too - only the wealthier people would have been progressively worse off than the existing policy.

Still not sure how that proposal addresses the issue of women being the ones who are also left holding the elder relative.

As far as I'm concerned, that's entirely within an individual's own control - it's not mandated that 'women must do that'.

NRFT yet, but good idea OP, thanks for this.
I'm about as far from right wing as you can get in some ways. I'm not a liberal, more a socialist.
I want the railways re-nationalised and am a campaigner for decent public transport (Tory policy is usually just invest in roads, public transport is for the poor and who cares about them!)
I am also pro living wage, anti privatisation of the NHS, pro union, and I don't believe in trickle down politics.

So economically, I feel the less powerful need certain protections, as those at the top will never have their interests at heart.
Having said that I would like to see less red tape for small independent businesses, and for it to be made easier for them to thrive (by making Costafication of local high streets harder..)
So.. we probably have little in common politically, BUT the self id issue is a completely cross party issue that affects all women and we need to join forces to beat it.
I'm also politically homeless now, as I will never vote for Corbyn and his gang of women hating bullies.

As far as I'm concerned, that's entirely within an individual's own control - it's not mandated that 'women must do that'.

Yes. I think that's a big part of the divide between Left and Right. The Left tend to say "But why doesn't the government solve this" as almost a reflex, like the state is your parent.

I don't have much time but...

I'm not sure what you expect the government to do about women having children. Stop it?

The issue is that women shouldn't be penalised for having children.

I have been reading this thread with interest. I'm a centre Labour voter, though no longer a member, mainly because of their stand on Brexit which at the moment is non negotiable until something positive is done - so far a negative approach seems to be the policy.

I have to disagree with Oldman in this:

But again, the populace elects who it chooses.

No it doesn't and to say so means you have little idea of the election process and the candidates who stand in the different constituencies. It is not a democratic process at all, especially when you factor in first past the post system. All voters make compromises when voting for a party because no party is ideal.

Have to add that I do have Tory voting friends and in the constituency I live in they are frustrated that the standing MP gets voted in every time to stand for re-election without anyone else being considered. They feel frustrated and partially disenfranchised by this because, for example, they support remaining in the EU and they support gay marriage and abortion (all of which their MP opposes).

No it doesn't and to say so means you have little idea of the election process and the candidates who stand in the different constituencies. It is not a democratic process at all, especially when you factor in first past the post system. All voters make compromises when voting for a party because no party is ideal.

First Past the Post is a problem, I agree. But it's not a gender issue. Nor is the inevitable necessity of compromising. The only way you can avoid compromise entirely is to stand as a candidate yourself. Which you can do. The question was why are there more men than women in parliament. The answer is that this is the outcome of voting.

The issue is that women shouldn't be penalised for having children.

Well that would be lovely. But as the context is pay gaps, what are you proposing employers should do / be made to do about it?

The only way you can avoid compromise entirely is to stand as a candidate yourself. Which you can do.

I agree to a certain extent but I was merely highlighting that both myself as a Labour voter and my friends as Conservative voters (they all prefix Tory with died in the wool) this isn't a compromise at all. Compromise is part of the election process. The feminist angle on this is what do you compromise?

But as the context is pay gaps, what are you proposing employers should do / be made to do about it?

That is the problem with leaving it to employers. And that is why capitalism isn't particularly feminist friendly.

One way to equalise it is to offer and encourage both parents to take the same leave, for example. To ensure that workers really don't work more than XX hours per week, regardless of sex, and parental status. To support child care costs.
There are many measures that have increasingly been adopted, but most have to be through laws or regulations.
Leaving it to employers discretion won't work.

Lweji - I think you're somewhat missing my point. Are you saying employers should be made to do these things by law? I mean we're talking about your view that the Conservatives haven't done enough to bring about equal pay. So is that what you're saying?

Oh, and at the risk of repeating myself, capitalist countries have proven themselves more feminist friendly than others. You can take a look at Islamic Theocracies and Monarchies, Communist countries, Fascist countries - all of which have had heavy emphasis on pushing traditional gender roles.

Are you saying employers should be made to do these things by law? I mean we're talking about your view that the Conservatives haven't done enough to bring about equal pay. So is that what you're saying?

You seem somewhat confused, actually.

My point is that we can't rely on employers' good will or commitment to feminism to close the pay gap. It has to come either through societal pressure (as if), or through laws.

But, I would very much like to be persuaded by you, or any other right wing thinker, that right wing policies work and contribute towards equality.

Can you point out any policies, or actual outcomes? Convince me.

Erm... I wouldn't say (all) communist countries have pushed strong gender roles, actually. Can you give any examples?

Still, I'm not arguing for Communism, Islamic theocracy, or Fascism.
Can you convince me that pure capitalism is better than something like social democracy? Or socialism (as is practiced by most socialist parties in Europe)?

Cuba educates women really well and has very strong female representation in it's Congress.

Despite the very strong culture of machismo the state has worked to significantly improve the situation of women.

Scandinavian countries consider themselves social democracies existing within capitalism.

They have significantly more gender equality due in large part to state intervention.

Lenin wrote on International Women's Day, 1921, while "in Soviet Russia, no trace is left of any inequality between men and women under the law…this is only the first step in the liberation of women."

Lots of women were doctors in Soviet era, however, due to entrenched misogyny this only led to doctors being paid badly and treated with less respect.

Ideologically the left talks a good game on feminism but fails to follow through with actions. However, at least they say the right things. Capitalism doesn't even pretend to support women. Choose your poison.

Capitalism doesn't even pretend to support women

But again, that comes down to the individual agency thing.

Capitalism doesn't mandate 'oppress women/keep women down".

You seem somewhat confused, actually. My point is that we can't rely on employers' good will or commitment to feminism to close the pay gap. It has to come either through societal pressure (as if), or through laws.

I'm confused as to what you're arguing - yes. That's why I asked my question and you haven't really answered it. You're saying there need to be laws to address wage gaps resulting from women taking time out to have children. What, specifically, do you think such laws should do?

Erm... I wouldn't say (all) communist countries have pushed strong gender roles, actually. Can you give any examples?

The USSR literally gave out medals of "The Order of Maternal Glory" to women for having high numbers of children. And if you had nine you got the 1st Class award.

Still, I'm not arguing for Communism, Islamic theocracy, or Fascism.

No but you've been arguing against me when I replied to someone who said they couldn't think of anything more patriarchal than capitalism. So if you don't disagree stop challenging me on it with requests for examples of communist countries pushing gender roles, etc.

I'm not sure what you expect the government to do about women having children. Stop it?

Er..do men not have children then? Yes I'm aware they don't give birth, but they do become fathers.
I think you are missing the point oldman.
The pay gap exists because it's considered a given still that women will care for everyone (children, elderly)while men will continue through their careers unfettered.
You CAN legislate to try to prevent this (Denmark have with shared and equal parental leave ).
Women closing the pay gap DOES depend on men changing behaviour, and they won't unless pushed by such legislation, and ultimately by societal pressures, because, well, if I had a wife taking care of everything at home I wouldn't fancy stepping up either.

Capitalism is not an ideology so it doesn't mandate anything.

However, 'women's work' has little value, people in caring roles, cleaning, childcare are paid low wages and treated badly. Capitalism places little economic value on these roles.

The Nordic countries have demonstrated when the state intervenes and changes laws to support women an improvement in the pay and conditions of women follows. The USA, the ultimate capitalist country has some of the worst maternity rights in the world.

State intervention does help women.