Harriet Harman - Men should sit out of next leadership contest

[FeministBadger]

Haven't seen this posted in Feminism chat yet, but would be interested to understand people's thoughts on Harriet Harman's claim that men should be stepping aside to ensure that the next Labour leader is a woman. (Hope the link works) www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/93837/excl-harriet-harman-says-men-should-sit-out-next

I'm having a couple of reactions to this - first one being it's never going to happen even if you could get Momentum on side. I also wonder if it did happen, whether positive discrimination would instantly damn whichever woman got the post and end up resulting in so much outright and subtle misogyny that she'd never get anything done because of the backlash which would then be seen as proof that she wasn't capable.

What do you think - would it ever happen and should it?

1. It would never happen
2. A transwoman would be fielded by Labour.

I think she is trying to gauge the sexism in the party. Interesting move.

While I understand why they happen, I'm not a massive fan of AWS. I think it hides misogyny and gives the appearance of solving a problem when that isn't the case.

Never going to happen.

I agree it would never happen, as there would be way too much resistance to the idea. You'd soon see how many men wouldn't be able to stop themselves from complaining that none of the possible women candidates could ever be good enough. They would also complain about how terrible it is that some talented men would miss out, completely missing the irony of that.

I also agree that there would be an onslaught of criticism, every mistake would be treated as a huge indicator that they weren't up to the job. A certain type of man would also take it as evidence that women generally aren't suitable.

I'd be impressed if it did happen. Tbh you could have all women candidates for decades and still not catch up with the number of all male candidates.

As far as I can remember Margaret Thatcher was a woman, not sure if she managed to achieve anything though.
What is needed is the best PERSON for the job.

She'd have been an odd choice for Labour leader though.

Men who are not the best have been getting the job for many many years. Why not let women who are good enough to have a go? No one is suggesting that women who aren't suitable should be considered.

While I understand why they happen, I'm not a massive fan of AWS. I think it hides misogyny and gives the appearance of solving a problem when that isn't the case. - This is interesting soapbox, I think I know where you're coming from but would you mind explaining further?

Whenever I've seen positive discrimination in the workplace it's always brought out hideous misogyny from men who I've thought were mostly harmless so I have massive reservations about their effectiveness.

Whenever I've seen positive discrimination in the workplace it's always brought out hideous misogyny from men who I've thought were mostly harmless so I have massive reservations about their effectiveness.

But that misogyny was already there - I think they're a blunt force to try and get the higher number of women normalised - then they can be dropped. Kinda like Singapore coming down hard on chewing gum until everyone's used to being civilised and not spitting it on the ground, then quietly and slowly relaxing the laws.

She must have said it to spark debate; it can’t be a serious suggestion.

I was disappointed that Harriet Harman didn’t go for the leadership herself; if she really wanted Labour to have a female leader, she should have put herself forward. I heard her discussing it on the radio once (the decision not to) and it infuriated me. Bloody typical that a highly capable women didn’t even consider it when men with a lot less experience and skills weren’t hesistating.

Labour should do more to encourage women but this suggestion won’t be taken seriously.

a highly capable woman*

I think the more prescient question would be what is going on on in the Labour Party when the Conservatives have had two female leaders who have both become Prime Minister with fewer female MP's in the time Labour have had none. AWS won't solve that conundrum because its not looking at the reasons why they need AWS when the Tories didn't.

I cant see it happening either - but if it starts a conversation about why the party that has always seen itself as being the party of the liberal left, that has prided it'self on being political correct, has failed to pick a woman as a leader, when the Tories - who have prided themselves often on being the home to conservative and traditional views - have not only picked a female leader twice, but proved that the country will vote for a woman PM.

True swivel I was just thinking in terms of the resulting difficulties for the woman who gets the job if there's allowed to be outright hostility. Although, as you say it was already there so how much difference would it make?

I think in a political arena with the press it would be even more unbearable - not least because the opposition would play it up and encourage male Labour MPs to revolt.

True swivel I was just thinking in terms of the resulting difficulties for the woman who gets the job if there's allowed to be outright hostility. Although, as you say it was already there so how much difference would it make?

Oh Christ yes - it's not like it really makes it any easier, because once you're in, now you have to justify it twice as hard.

It's a ridiculous state of affairs when you step back - that people have to be forced to consider women.

To be fair I'd rather have a true socialist as leader rather than someone who is just a woman because they're a woman. ..

Blair (the war criminal) was far more feminist than Corbyn, but he continued in the vein of Thatcher in progressing the neo-liberal agenda which makes life harder overall for women.

Blair brought in lots of potential leaders for the party including Stella Creasey who still hold similar ideology to him. Blair made wide use of AWS.

Unfortunately by the time more recent leadership elections came all the women Blair brought in were right-wingers and times had changed, there was hunger for true socialism.

I'd rather women were given opportunity to advance through the party and if AWS help this they should remain in place.

But in terms of leader, I'd rather vote on their political position than their sex.

*lots of potential female leaders

the party that has always seen itself as being the party of the liberal left,

If that ever was an accurate description, it surely isn't now in this age of Bromentum and antisemitism.

(the other contender for that description - the libdems - seem to do even worse on lack of women.)

I do think all women short lists are bloody ridiculous, but that isn't what Harriet Harman is saying. She's asking men to step aside, and actually I agree with her as when you stand for a leadership role you are stating two things:

First you are saying you want the job, but secondly and more importantly you are asserting you are the best person for it too. Now for it's entire existence the Labour Party in the UK (although not in Scotland, and it's important to point that out) has seen an unbroken succession of men asserting, and securing their place as Labour leader.

What this also unfortunately asserts by implication is that no woman was competent enough when up against the men, and this compounds as time goes on particularly in the light that we are not only on our second Conservative female leader but both the women were/are bloody Prime Ministers. It's also worth pointing to the fact no Conservative Party has actually lost an election, so we can actually and confidently state only men lose general elections, women have a 100% success rate in actually winning them! In the UK that is!

What needs to be asked of every potential male labour candidate is: "If you believe you are the best candidate for the job are you happy to join the unbroken line of male candidates who have asserted their superiority over their female colleagues in this regard? And can we safely dismiss any claims that you are an avid supporter of women as simple political rhetoric designed to win votes, and is in fact not your own personal view?"

What Harman is doing is laying the track for this debate to happen and hopefully in the future bear fruit. I was disappointed she didn't stand against Corbyn as when she was acting leader she impressed me a whole lot.

Sorry that above line should read no Conservative party has ever actually lost under a woman. Apologies

No one else seems to be bothered about the fact that Harriet Harman is asking men to step aside instead of just having the courage to stand alongside them.

Obviously there are a whole host of factors that make it an uneven fight, but to not even try, and instead to expect your competitors to step aside... it just seems a bit pathetic to me.

And this is coming from a feminist who would love to see all/mostly female candidates. But I don’t want people arguing they haven’t earned their place fair and square in opposition to the men.

Actually I think asking a man to stand aside is striking exactly the right tone, as for any man to step aside he must trully believe that the female candidate is at least his equal if not more capable. The status quo reveals that Labour men don't really believe women are their equal at least not really. A fact you cannot accuse the Tory party of.

@AnotherEmma

We don't on the whole earn our place fair and square, men esteem men much more that they esteem women.
I'm not making this up.
These articles are an interesting assessment of the effect on economics. This is why the gender pay gap will never close!

www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/business/why-womens-voices-are-scarce-in-economics.html

www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/upshot/even-famous-female-economists-get-no-respect.html

And a great piece on a study done by Ms Wu on how women in economics are talked about.

www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/upshot/evidence-of-a-toxic-environment-for-women-in-economics.html?_r=0

So if the top of the pyramid is weighted heavily male, there is more support inherent in the decision making levels of the pyramid for males, meaning it is a statistical anomaly that woman will get a leadership position.

There is inherent bias in the system. This supports our gut reaction to IDing your way into the AWS . It is biased. And the bias has a self fulfilling effect on women.

Ms. Wu mined more than a million posts from an anonymous online message board frequented by many economists. The site, commonly known as econjobrumors.com (its full name is Economics Job Market Rumors), began as a place for economists to exchange gossip about who is hiring and being hired in the profession. Over time, it evolved into a virtual water cooler frequented by economics faculty members, graduate students and others.

It now constitutes a useful, if imperfect, archive for studying what economists talk about when they talk among themselves. Because all posts are anonymous, it is impossible to know whether the authors are men or women, or how representative they are of the broader profession. Indeed, some may not even be economists. But it is clearly an active and closely followed forum, particularly among younger members of the field.

Ms. Wu set up her computer to identify whether the subject of each post is a man or a woman. The simplest version involves looking for references to “she,” “her,” “herself” or “he,” “him,” “his” or “himself.”

She then adapted machine-learning techniques to ferret out the terms most uniquely associated with posts about men and about women.

The 30 words most uniquely associated with discussions of women make for uncomfortable reading.

In order, that list is: hotter, lesbian, bb (internet speak for “baby”), sexism, tits, anal, marrying, feminazi, slut, hot, vagina, boobs, pregnant, pregnancy, cute, marry, levy, gorgeous, horny, crush, beautiful, secretary, dump, shopping, date, nonprofit, intentions, sexy, dated and prostitute.

The parallel list of words associated with discussions about men reveals no similarly singular or hostile theme. It includes words that are relevant to economics, such as adviser, Austrian (a school of thought in economics) mathematician, pricing, textbook and Wharton (the University of Pennsylvania business school that is President Trump’s alma mater). More of the words associated with discussions about men have a positive tone, including terms like goals, greatest and Nobel. And to the extent that there is a clearly gendered theme, it is a schoolyard battle for status: The list includes words like bully, burning and fought.

In her paper, Ms. Wu says the anonymity of these online posts “eliminates any social pressure participants may feel to edit their speech” and so perhaps allowed her “to capture what people believe but would not openly say.”

Sounds a bit like the Labour Party.