Earldoms for Girldom: Helen Lewis in The Atlantic

[GrinitchSpinach]

Good golly, that woman can write!

Here is her profile of Charlotte Carew Pole, who runs the Daughters' Rights campaign to end male primogeniture for the titled.

At stake are not just names, estates, and money, but the 92 seats in the United Kingdom’s Parliament reserved for hereditary peers, all of which are currently held by men. In Britain, the traditions of the upper class distort democracy for everyone.

What follows is a strange story, because it is about discrimination toward the privileged: feminism for aristocrats. It reveals a country trapped between tradition and modernity, between the Middle Ages and the 21st century.

...the glib left-wing retort—Who cares about feminism for aristocrats?—ignores the fact that Britain’s son preference deforms the very institution that sets our laws. There are, essentially, seats in our Parliament reserved for men.

www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/11/feminist-aristocrats-who-want-daughters-rights/617067/

Place marking to read later. Thanks for sharing Grinitch, shocking.

Does she mention that this is one of the exemptions to the GRA?

@Campervan69

Does she mention that this is one of the exemptions to the GRA?

She does mention it, though she doesn't go into detail on that aspect.

Really interesting well researched, well written piece.

Excellent article. Nuanced, clear, balanced. I am no expert on politics or the constitution, but my hunch is that having a second/upper chamber with members drawn from a wide range of professional and other backgrounds is a very good thing, if they have a clear remit to review legislation in detail with less emphasis on party political point-scoring than you see in the House of Commons. There is no case now at all for having hereditary peers in there. I'd be happy to see their role abolished. However, if that's not going to happen, let's at least do something about increasing the number of female hereditary peers. When even the monarchy has abandoned male primogeniture, surely the case for reform of the peerage is cut and dried.

Interesting - I can see the paradox between being outraged at the sexism whilst not exactly supporting the idea of aristocratic inheritance in the 21st century...It's mad that this wasn't changed at the same time as the Royal Family's law of succession, really.

I always thought it was strange that Downton Abbey was always presented as "look how bad and unfair things were for women 100 years ago" when the family would have been in the exact same position today - probably worse, even, because marrying your daughter off to her cousin to keep the estate in the family would be frowned upon now rather than a convenient solution!

That was a good read and throws up many interesting questions.

Overt sexism is acceptable in all levels of society where other discrimination would not.

She's an amazing writer.

Overt sexism is acceptable in all levels of society where other discrimination would not.

Yes, Melroses. I'm not on Twitter but can see she's getting the predictable pasting there from oh-so-progressive dudes (and some women) pretending that she hasn't addressed the inherently nonsensical idea of aristocracy in the first place, while blithely ignoring her point that this involves not just fortunes/castles/titles but actual political representation.

Journalist points out that representation in the House of Lords is shaped by anachronistic, sexist law and principles - gets shouted at by men for not dismantling the House of Lords.

Rights for women when we have sorted the revolution........

@Melroses

Rights for women when we have sorted the revolution........

Very much this.

Also, I was surprised to learn that the Daughters’ Rights group’s European Court complaint on the grounds of sex discrimination, filed July 2018, hasn’t yet received a response. Is that a normal timeline for the Court? Has Brexit complicated it? Would love any insight from legal eagles.