Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Harriet Harman - Men should sit out of next leadership contest

62 replies

FeministBadger · 23/03/2018 16:02

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?

OP posts:
OvaHere · 23/03/2018 17:40

Do the Conservative male MPs believe Theresa May is their equal though?

She didn't become PM under normal circumstances and it could be argued that the situation came about because none of the men wanted a job that, at that point, looked like career suicide.

Making the massive assumption (for the sake of argument) that Brexit from 2019 onwards isn't a massive shit show and the Tories regain public confidence does anyone really think there won't be a massive power play to usurp Theresa and replace her with a favoured man to be the face of a new Britain.

Just to be clear I don't think Labour are any better at all and quite likely worse given recent goings on but I'm unconvinced with the idea the Tories are hugely pro- women.

Although I will concede the visuals of having had 2 female PMs and the value of that can't be totally dismissed.

OvaHere · 23/03/2018 17:44

Way too many massives in that post. I really shouldn't try to multi task when discussing politics Grin

FeministBadger · 23/03/2018 17:52

One of the things I've personally found with conservative men (with a big or little c) is that even if they think that MOST women are better suited for children, caring (blaaah) that they will look at an individual woman and give them a single pass for being different which could explain how the Tories have fewer female MPs but two female leaders. It's not less sexism, it's different sexism where if you can prove against all the odds that you're better, then and only then will they concede.

OP posts:
NameChange30 · 23/03/2018 17:52

Mouth
With all due respect your reply to me was a bit patronising. I’m not an idiot. I’m a feminist. I know the system is biased. I even referred to the “uneven fight” in my post. I was taking that as a given, tbh.

CritEqual · 23/03/2018 19:16

@OvaHere undoubtedly there are Tory men who are sexist, but on the subject of representation they have a better record than Labour when it comes to leaders/ Prime Ministers. What rankles me is one of the sticks Tories are often beaten with is old school misogyny as if this is a problem the enlightened left have evolved beyond, when in truth they are often worse.

I reject the notion we shouldn't entirely dismiss the fact the Tories have fielded two female Prime Ministers as if we should somehow dismiss some of that. I could advance the argument that as a nation we have thrived under female leadership. I don't think we would be half the nation we are today were it not for the Monarchy of Queen Elizabeth I who as far as Monarchs go presided over colossal advancements in art, culture, philosophy, religion and most significantly of all the birth of science from the backdrop of natural philosophy. She was fully engaged with and instrumental in leading.

Also the sheer fact is that the Tories have proven TWICE that the British electorate are content to be governed by and will embrace a female leader. The fact that Labour haven't thus far reveals that in truth they are rather backwards and seemingly can only really talk the talk and rarely walk it.

LassWiADelicateAir · 23/03/2018 20:16

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

Yes, indeed,

no Conservative party has ever actually lost under a woman.

I hadn't thought of that but good point,

ErrolTheDragon · 23/03/2018 20:44

I guess it's an individualism vs 'class' sort of thing. HH is asking for special treatment for women-as-a-class. While positive discrimination is valid in some contexts, I really don't think it is applicable to singular positions such as party leader or PM.

SpareRibFem · 23/03/2018 20:49

I have a real problem with Labours lack of women leaders, I'm not a natural conservative but I can't make myself vote for a party that appears to hate women and that doesn't leave many options.

CritEqual · 23/03/2018 20:59

@ErrolTheDragon No no no HH is asking for men to step aside, not for an all woman shortlist for Party Leader. The whole point is to reflect WHY no Labour men seem to countenance the possibility that a woman could be as at least as capable and potentially be the better candidate.

I don't interpret her question as being that women need special treatment, they simply need the ingrained biases amongst Labour males to be examined and moved beyond. A possibility I fear is less and less likely as the party moves more and more to the extreme right, which lets face it as a tremendous problem with misogyny.

In a sense this Trans Zeitgeist is a godsend as it lets them maintain their bias whilst simultaneously lets them trumpet how right on and progressive they all are! This plays well with the young idealists who lets be frank often haven't got the life experience to yet know when they are being manipulated.

Mouthtrousersafrocknowandthen · 23/03/2018 21:01

@AnotherEmma

Mistake to @ you on that last post. Just sharing evidence that I've found backing up the structural imbalance. I'm being expected to explain this to clients now so I have research coming out of my ears. Other people may find it interesting. Client naysayers dismiss stuff unless there is data. It struck me how much Ms Wu found about the economists board sounded just like the labour party, if you've read those threads here. Apologies for sounding patronising. I don't think women can be described as pathetic as you did for expecting competitors to step aside when it's rigged market. The job market is rigged, women won't get to the top in my lifetime in equal numbers. Companies won't unilaterally change, they always want the most expensive man for the job. But politics is not supposed to be entirely marketised I would suggest.

CritEqual · 23/03/2018 21:22

@FeministBadger Does it occur to you that that is how small c or large C conservative men view themselves? Inasmuch that they don't just roll over and show their bellies to any Tom, Dick or Harry that comes along? There needs to be an actual display of ability in the competance heirarchy? The difference being that conservative men are at least willing to do the same to a Theresa, Diana or Harriet that comes along that shows the same?

I'm not arguing that conservatism isn't free from sexism, and I wouldn't dare argue that for a moment, merely that they are a lot further along the path of accepting women than most men on the left.

The difference is that on the left everyone will close ranks to protect and mitigate leftists men status as right on champions of equality and social justice. Just look at Jess Phillips rhetoric surrounding the abuse perpetrated by Jo Cox's husband or how Nicola Sturgeon rushed to Alex Salmonds defense declaring he wasn't sexist after sexist jokes he told at the Edinburgh Festival.

Sexism and misogyny is either universally not ok and needs to be called out, or it's just harmless but it can't be just rolled out to smear your political opponents but passes handed out when men on your own side does it. To do otherwise makes a mockery of the whole enterprise.

Women and feminism is often politically weaponized when it is convenient to the left, but thrown under the bus when it isn't.

Caucho · 23/03/2018 21:42

Any female leader who got voted in on the basis Harriett proposes would get ridiculed by the press and would follow them around like a bad smell. Positive discrimination might work on a local / minor level but would be subject to ridicule on a national scale. It would be a too heavy chain for the woman leader to wear even if she had merit in the first place

FeministBadger · 23/03/2018 21:46

Totally agree CritEqual - I've never been tribal with politics although I am left leaning but I'm feeling increasingly politically homeless in no small part due to the continual and hypocritical misogyny of the Labour Party. It does make me want to look for answers as to what is going wrong for women on the left, and what's working on the right.

Half my doubtfulness is that I have no academic feminism so it's just basic reading and experience based - hence wondering if other posters can be enlightening. And then I also wonder whether I'm being unrealistic about the success in the Conservative party and it's just been one woman with May being thrown a shitty stick.

OP posts:
Mouthtrousersafrocknowandthen · 23/03/2018 22:09

I don't fully agree that the press would ridicule, this is the year of the gender pay gap and business is taking that seriously. The are actively having to track the reasons why they have this problem.

Political parties are always seem to be behind the curve on this. I think it's because they are so dependent on lobbyists for policy (who is going to lobby about equality other than Stonewall?).

WEP moved into his space. I've got a meeting with a new branch set up tomorrow. I know about the TIMS. I am going to talk about WEP lobbying.

deydododatdodontdeydo · 23/03/2018 22:24

Agree with Caucho, there would be so many people waiting with glee for the inevitable failures to blame the way she was elected.
Thing is, any election, most men do stand aside, there's only 2 or 3 who stand. And it only take one for men to not have stepped aside.
When Milliband was elected would have been a good time, because the male candidates were so pathetically poor.

Caucho · 23/03/2018 22:27

I think the Daily Mail and others would have a field day. Such and such leader only voted leader on the basis of blah blah....it would be a massive stick. I’m thinking like a man and you’re thinking like a woman. You can’t win an election if you only appeal to one sex

Caucho · 23/03/2018 22:38

I realise this is the feminist board but would take umbrage if I had a leader thrust upon me due to such policy and would be tempted to vote against as a hissy fit. Was one of the main reasons Hilary Clinton lost. Vote for me because I’m a woman. I agree that poor male candidates should step aside when they’re average though. Yvette Cooper would have been a better bet then Corbyn but would have never have won the leadership election against Corbyn. They’re worse than the Tories in that respect despite claiming to be left wing, inclusive etc. Look at the trade unions

Mouthtrousersafrocknowandthen · 23/03/2018 22:41

Why oh why do women spend so much time talking their selves out of things instead of talking their selves into things. Wonder if that makes any difference to the gender pay gap. Mmmm, thinks seriously about that question to her self. Decides to keep quiet.

Caucho · 23/03/2018 22:49

I do think there should be some sort of ‘effort’ for a female leader but that road needs to be tread very carefully and don’t know how you could do it without it becoming public. I don’t think there is an outstanding female candidate in the Labour Party currently but don’t think there’s an outstanding male one either! Ditto Tories, Lib Dems et all. I despair at the quality of our current crop of politicians on a cross party basis

LightofaSilveryMoon · 24/03/2018 00:30

Looking at Teresa May's history - post Brexit - I think the whole of UK politics is totally inadequate and unfeasible.

Women (like T. May, e.g) are set up for positions where men have fucked up and don't know what to do. So they employ a woman to try to clean up the shit.... Haven't we heard that story before?A situation where someone must take blame? - Appoint a woman!

Bleuugh!

Ditto what HH is now trying to say.

Mouthtrousersafrocknowandthen · 24/03/2018 00:58

Started reading a bit about Iceland. Sorry its only the Guardian comic.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/06/iceland-women-government-better-for-mothers-america-lessons

womanformallyknownaswoman · 24/03/2018 05:13

It's an interesting move. She must be testing sexism - and see who outs their true colours by their refusal to give anything up

ChattyLion · 24/03/2018 07:35

Critequal I agree with your post. I don’t think the Tories are woman friendly particularly more than the other parties at all, their female PMs have tended to rise when there is economic and social shit to clean up after.

On the other hand I have hope that having a female PM is a great inspiration for girls. If not always great (dependent on that female PM’s policies..) for the adult women affected by the ruling party’s policies day-to-day in her life and work.

But then what a risk to a female PM it would be for her to be seen as putting in policies that are too pro-woman or pro- mother or pro-family. It would be her Emperors New Clothes movement- ‘but you’re noting but a woman!/mother!’ and she’d be out. Hence they always seem to have very male cabinets behind them. So the woman at the top is seen to have men’s agreement and backing.

I think anyway actually what we are talking about is the difference not between women vs men necessarily always, but often the differences between mothers vs everyone else.

I think being a Tory attracts a mix of political tribes, not all mutually exclusive.

These include those with a sense of alienation from the left from what they feel is its constant political personal policing, the libertarian side. IME these Tories are not less sexist at all in general but they can be happy to concede where an individual woman has proved her worth in terms of the job.

Just not at all happy if she then also wants any systematic protections or recognition of the systemic disadvantages she (and all women) faces from well, sexism. You know the type who dismiss women complaining of sexual harassment, assault and even rape of ‘well, that’s just bad sex that she regretted the next day’.

They are so obsessed with the political ideal individual freedom they are blind to the realities of oppression per class (of eg women.) and they also can’t see their own privilege and think everyone else is as free an actor as they feel and know themselves to be. So bad consequences (like not being able to get a job for example) are the just punishment of bad personal choices. Shrug shoulders.

Then there are those with a sense of history via their expensive public school education who venerate the ‘Virgin Queen’ model that Thatcher kind of transformed herself into. Those with a strong Christian religious background who gravitate towards the Tories will also appreciate the iconographic aspect of a singular woman leader who is not like other women, who has qualities that shine out above the mass of women, existing on a weird, special non-venal plane. Both of these groups also recognise today’s Queen Elizabeth as a hero which legitimises that idea somewhat and I worry what will happen when she, and her symbolic example has passed on.

I mean, think of a prominent Tory like Jacob Rees Mogg. Would a woman who has had that many kids ever have a cats chance of making it in politics, Conservative or any party? Fuck no.

She’d be shot down as a shit mother for not being at home and ignoring the demands of her kids’ and probably secretly hated for having said yes to sex that many times too, or something. There is not and can’t be any female equivalent of someone like him. Because the view of what (particularly) mothers should do and are for, is so rigid.

When I see the male politicians bigging it up about how much they love their families and how they sneak off from their powerful jobs to read their kids a bedtime story (I think Obama said he did this in the White House) they all get loads of love from the media for being fantastic human guys and making it easier for modern families and encouraging men to be dads and breaking down barriers and generally being bloody amazing heroes for taking a bit of time off to do something fun with their kids. (They never seem to say- ‘I always make sure get home in time to shop for and cook and clean up the kids’ dinners every night’’ [hmmm]).

I just look on this and just feel depressed because I know even me making similar claims or admissions about ^my own* job (not senior/Board level, not elected) would be looked at askance like I wasn’t doing my job properly, let alone being feted as some kind of Uber parent. You must be joking. And a female PM/President could never go anywhere NEAR that kind of talk.

To be fair to Tories I don’t think I have seen this superdad claim much from hard right wingers. That’s more a Cameroonian seeking to be seen as centrist position, But it seems pervasive among powerful left-wingers. And they even like to hint (or boast if they are Tont Blair) about themselves as loving husbands and sexual beings too- good luck doing that as a woman in politics.

The hard right don’t tend to make claims about being ‘hands on’ while they do often publicly put their wives and families on a pedestal, which often fits with the further right-wing’s being very open about their appreciation of rigid gender roles. (And often seeking to enforce them on others).

I just can’t see any female president or PM being able to boast about sneaking off to have special time with her kids or spouse (she couldn’t not be married) as being lauded. It would be used against her an example about how she was fucking up her kids by putting her career first, and to make her out to be mentally unstable: ‘female PM’s secret tornent at separation from her kids’.

I’m not normally cynical this many times before breakfast, but I really feel that how a lot of people see political leadership and motherhood have it so stacked against anyone that wants to combine both in a visible way. Sorry for the massive essay but it really fucks me off because if a woman PM or President COULD do that and tell us about it freely, with no punishment to follow, it would be absolutely revolutionary for other working mothers.

SonicVersusGynaephobia · 24/03/2018 08:31

Interesting.

I haven't RTFT yet (I will), but my first thought was, if 51% of the population was black, and Labour had never had a black leader, and someone said "this is ridiculous, we need to change this. For our next leader we are going to vote for the best candidate out of this pool of 50% of our people so the candidate is definitely black" then I don't think anyone could think that was a bad thing and I think the party (men) would be on board with it so long as it was a black man.

Men will be annoyed about this and think its unfair on them (if it happens, doubt it will), but what they need to remember is that for the last many decades, the rule has effectively been the opposite: "we must pick our next leader out of this pool of white, middle-aged, middle-class, men". They've already had a long period of time where they got to have a run at it without having to go up against anyone "other". Now it is time to share.

(I also think, if this happens, it will be a trans woman. That will keep both the Woke Penis Feminists™ and the men happy, especially the men who think a women-only leadership contest would be unfair)

ChattyLion · 24/03/2018 09:03

Sonic I think you are right. TW would be seen as less likely to pose any issues by actually leading on women’s issues like pregnancy and childcare at work, abortion rights for NI women, funding research on better kinds of contraception for women, more women’s sports funding, putting in public health policy measures to stop women feeling they are not able to exercise or walk alone (and at no financial cost) in public spaces like parks, for fear of male attack.. list goes on.

Despite the apparent solidarity of the ‘TW=W’ mantra.
The female experience would still be obscured and unsupported. The male brocialists would love it cos any woman not cheerleading this ‘progressive’ ‘inclusive’ appointment would then be silence-able as fair game for denigrating and for writing off as irrelevant dinosaurs blinkered by biological sex.

Also TBF I feel neither a transwoman nor a woman political leader would be able to pull off a woman-centred progressive agenda unless there were loads more women in senior politics to support it and the whole culture voters and politicians exist in general becomes less sexist.

Harriet Harman feels to me like she’s trying to break that chicken and egg negative stalemate by forcing a debate so absolutely good on her. Flowers
Also it’s a way of having a dig at Corbyn and hoisting Labour men by their own petard which is good to see as so many are such hypocrites about diversity when it comes to women..
I hope Harriet’s call gets picked up more widely in the media so we can see how it is positively responded to, treated as an interesting thought experiment, or used against her, and by whom. We could ask MNHQ to ask her in for more discussion in a web chat which might give it some more oxygen?