The left wing: Why are so many feminists still bothering with them?

[RowlingsArmy]

I have been following these boards, and in particular the GC issue for a while now.

I live in a working-class Labour stronghold, but I consider myself to be politically homeless as no left wing parties support women, and I disagree with most of the policies of the right.

One thing I've noticed is that a lot of gender critical people are still holding onto Labour/ Lib Dems/ The Greens. I am really confused as to why this is?

These parties have made it crystal clear that they don't want us. All of these parties have expelled women that have expressed gender critical/ pro-women viewpoints.

Why would you stay somewhere where you're not welcome?

I think even the much more benign examples of non-marxist communism you give often have an element of coercion under the surface.

This is certainly true, but I don't think there are any societies or systems where that isn't true.

Capitalism is certainly not efficient. It glorifies inefficiency - what inefficiency actually is, is opportunities for well placed people to take a cut here, a cut there.

Look at the USA health care shitshow. Everything costs a fortune because the system is set up, through insurance, as a gravy train. it is the literal absolute opposite of efficient.

Capitalism has no scope to make decisions on the basis of the long term or the environmental outcomes. It is a huge problem. In this sense also, it is the opposite of efficient.

Social housing is interesting. I have pretty strong views on the limits of land ownership generally, but housing has to be basic and affordable.

My sense though is that if that was my main policy concern in voting, I still wouldn't have a very good idea of who I could vote for in terms of a left or right party. One might have slightly better immediate funding but neither has anything like what I'd consider a useful vision, and worse has no way to get there, their ideology won't let them form such a thing.

Honestly I think in terms of housing rights, late feudalism had something worthwhile to say to us and in fact recognised some rights that many people are so alienated from they don't even know they could exist. I guess that would be a conservative view on housing policy? though if someone proposed it they'd probably be seen as a radical leftist.

no left wing parties support women,

No left wing parties support women (and men) that hold transphobic views, to be more accurate.

What is the definition of 'transphobia' and 'women' that they use to kick women out of the party?
Is it in line with existing legislation?

@Goosefoot - interesting! Please can you tell me more about your thoughts about land rights and late feudalism?

@Goosefoot

Social housing is interesting. I have pretty strong views on the limits of land ownership generally, but housing has to be basic and affordable.

My sense though is that if that was my main policy concern in voting, I still wouldn't have a very good idea of who I could vote for in terms of a left or right party. One might have slightly better immediate funding but neither has anything like what I'd consider a useful vision, and worse has no way to get there, their ideology won't let them form such a thing.

Honestly I think in terms of housing rights, late feudalism had something worthwhile to say to us and in fact recognised some rights that many people are so alienated from they don't even know they could exist. I guess that would be a conservative view on housing policy? though if someone proposed it they'd probably be seen as a radical leftist.

When one party (of the centre left) is prepared to spend a substantial part of the budget on housing and another party (centre right) is prepared to spend zero, it's pretty easy to choose.

That's my real world experience as of today. Vote left, have a hope. Vote right, have nothing. I'm not sure why anyone would wonder why some ppl.are 'clinging to the left' in economic terms.

Nothing wooly or idealist about it.

Nothing wooly or idealist about it.

It's pragmatic, but that is going to depend a lot on your particular political scene, even down to region, and the degree to which it's likely that the political promises will actually happen.

And even pragmatism can be conflicted in terms of short and middle term outcomes.

I'm not surprised lots of people still would consider a leftist party the best option, either pragmatically or ideologically. But I can see why the OP might feel it's useless as it's become so infested with critical theory BS. In some jurisdictions it might seem a better bet to try and influence conservative politics.

[quote SenselessUbiquity]@Goosefoot - interesting! Please can you tell me more about your thoughts about land rights and late feudalism?[/quote]
Feudalism varies a lot over different geographical regions and over time, and for serfs it was pretty crappy - selling serfs openly in the market was allowed in Russia up until 1833!

But before the modern period the idea was that land was not owned privatly, although it was administered by someone appointed by the king or the title passed through inheritance. But someone born on the land had a claim to live there and making a living from the land permanently - it couldn't be sold out from under them, they couldn't be evicted due to gentrification. The flip side is that you couldn't just up and move either - freedom to move vs freedom to stay.

It was later that the aristocracy was considered to own the land in the sense of private property, as something that could be bought and sold on the market.

I have doubts that many today would give up freedom of movement for freedom to stay, though it has some interesting parallels with things like the administration of aboriginal lands in some districts. It's a different enough concept to most people that they find it a little alien, that being born on and living on land could constitute a claim in and of itself - it would imply, if all people were treated equally, that all people would have this claim somewhere - no one could be landless. I find it an interesting framework to compare the sorts of systems we tend to take for granted as normal.

@Goosefoot

Nothing wooly or idealist about it.

It's pragmatic, but that is going to depend a lot on your particular political scene, even down to region, and the degree to which it's likely that the political promises will actually happen.

And even pragmatism can be conflicted in terms of short and middle term outcomes.

I'm not surprised lots of people still would consider a leftist party the best option, either pragmatically or ideologically. But I can see why the OP might feel it's useless as it's become so infested with critical theory BS. In some jurisdictions it might seem a better bet to try and influence conservative politics.

I can see that everyone has to prioritise issues in how they choose to allocate their political/voting capital.

I am yet to be convinced that the economic right has any good answers to disability, homelessness, poverty...maybe conservatives do?

My sense is that conservatives lionise the family as the seat of economic security, and fail to get to grips with the reality that for a substantial minority, family fails. What then?

Political extremism is hardly confined to the left. Just yesterday the FBI announced they'd arrested 6 men for plotting to kidnap the governor of Michigan (a Democrat):

www.justice.gov/opa/pr/six-arrested-federal-charge-conspiracy-kidnap-governor-michigan

That's hardly an isolated event. Right wing militias in the US have been plotting against the US government for decades, sustained by an ongoing ideology that makes all government the enemy and a hero of any good ol' boy with a gun. When Timothy McVeigh murdered 168 of his fellow Americans and injured 680 others in the Oklahoma City bombing (including babies in the gov daycare), he was one of a long line of domestic terrorists who've viewed killing their countryman as an acceptable price for their version of "freedom." The innumerable murders or black men and women by vigilantes, with blond eyes turned by complicit (or even outright involved) officials are part of that, too.

Not so long ago, a right wing extremist actually murdered a British MP (Labour) because he considered her to be too open to multiculturalism.

None of my centre right friends support any of this, any more than I support the intolerant fringe of the left. Most of us are angry at the way our parties on both sides have been taken over by extremist loons. But our views on taxes, public services, and wealth distribution haven't changed much. So we stick to our sides, fight for our democratic institutions and the separation of powers, and repudiate the loons.

I have quizzed friends on their political views and found that often they are a real mish mash of opinions which straddle the whole spectrum. These are the people who decide because they are the big numbers, they are fluid and they are often forgotten because so long as a political party 'does no harm' to their views, they will vote consistently. We understand the hard left and the hard right but fail to understand the middle ground. They are fascinating.

This middle ground bring about landslides Thatcher, Blair, Johnson but only occasionally, what happens the rest of the time.

Thanks Goosefoot - for the stuff about feudalism.
I consider it really odd that you have to pay (so much!) for things like somewhere to live, and water. It's really strange that we are all born on the earth of this planet and then have to scrabble for a bit of space on it, as if on sufferance.

I can see that everyone has to prioritise issues in how they choose to allocate their political/voting capital.

I am yet to be convinced that the economic right has any good answers to disability, homelessness, poverty...maybe conservatives do?

My sense is that conservatives lionise the family as the seat of economic security, and fail to get to grips with the reality that for a substantial minority, family fails. What then?

I think the economic right, as in economic liberals, tend not to say a lot about that. Though in many places even the right wing parties offer socialist solutions to some problems, it's not as if the major parties are typically purist.

If you look backwards to the conservative tradition, there would be layers of people who are meant to take responsibility for such things - family, but also employers and the employers of the family. The employer/employee relation wasn't seen a s a contract relationship, but one based on a sort of vow, and mutual loyalty/responsibility in both directions, from cradle to grave. This wasn't necessarily the law in our sense but it was a binding social norm. Though the as now you would have people who would pay lip service.

That attitude still existed to some extent in my grandmothers day, where you had people who would work for one employer their whole working life. I would say it's pretty much entirely gone now.

I think that a conservative (not economically liberal though) position now would tend to say that while the state socialism solution seems great, and may have elements worth keeping, in practice it can't work without the underlying social structures that support communities like family ties, stable communities, and expectation of people helping each other, the responsibility employers have for their employees. And also that it is possible for socialist solutions to undermine some of these things if they aren't very carefully considered and implemented.

It also seems to put more emphasis on social values as being as important as legislation, whereas you tend to see on the political left a professed desire to not impose moral values (so they say, anyway, arguably they just present them differently.)

That attitude still existed to some extent in my grandmothers day, where you had people who would work for one employer their whole working life

Not sure how old your grandmother was, but through the 20s and 30s there was a huge amount of economic insecurity with people moving about for work and short term contracts (you may recall Tebbit and his father who 'got on his bike' to look for work). It also saw the dying days of domestic service, which had been a huge employer of working class women. There was a short period after WW2 as the rebuilding took off and the roots of modern capitalism (consumption) took hold where things were more stable in some Western countries and people really did have jobs for life. But by the late 70s and into the 1980s, unemployment was very high.

Because, as a woman, I realize that right wing conservatism often fueled by religious dogma offers absolutely nothing to my benefit.

My sense is that conservatives lionise the family as the seat of economic security, and fail to get to grips with the reality that for a substantial minority, family fails. What then?

I think that the nuclear family is a real problem for women. The trouble is it has been our main familial structure in this country for so long now that it's wallpaper to most. I think it can leave women lonely, put intolerable pressure on the main relationship, and leave women vulnerable to hidden domestic abuse. Low earning women with little social support can end up trapped or paying a huge financial price to escape. It has proved very effective in keeping women apart from each other, in competition with each other, and busily distracted expending thought and energy on a man. The arrival of children brings major problems.

@Gwynfluff

That attitude still existed to some extent in my grandmothers day, where you had people who would work for one employer their whole working life

Not sure how old your grandmother was, but through the 20s and 30s there was a huge amount of economic insecurity with people moving about for work and short term contracts (you may recall Tebbit and his father who 'got on his bike' to look for work). It also saw the dying days of domestic service, which had been a huge employer of working class women. There was a short period after WW2 as the rebuilding took off and the roots of modern capitalism (consumption) took hold where things were more stable in some Western countries and people really did have jobs for life. But by the late 70s and into the 1980s, unemployment was very high.

My grandmother was born in 1921. That attitude has been on the decline since near the beginning of the industrial revolution and the switch over to capitalism. But you could still find many of the basic building block of that sort of conservatism up to about the 1950s in some people's attitudes to work and employment, with as you say something of a resurgence after WWII.

It's alien enough now that many people find the whole idea completely alien and unimaginable.

singasonga

You nailed it for me. Unfortunately authoritarian populism is on an upswing, which makes me despair as a Classical left liberal. But it doesn’t make be blind to the fact that the Extreme right is just as authoritarian and at least as willing to Use violence to get what it wants, to rewrite history and To ignore science as the extreme left. The majority of terrorism in the West is The domestic Right wing kind.

Unfortunately choosing to disengage politically (Even if I’m angry at my party) is how the authoritarian right wins and I’m not willing to let that happen. Get the left in then work behind the scenes To convince people like the TRAs have been doing all along.

The right don't give a shit about women and the erasure of women, they just hate anyone different and sexual liberation: gay people, the pro-choice, female bodily autonomy, people of colour and now, trans.
Don't forget that.