Even Conservative Woman is Supporting Kathleen Stock

[Tesla73]

I subscribe to this newsletter not because I'm conservative but just because they cover issues that left wing media liked to ignore and this is quite a good supportive article

www.conservativewoman.co.uk/why-this-leftie-feminist-deserves-our-support/

@NiceGerbil
*Esp the apparent RULE that only left wing people can be Feminists.

this is an issue for WOMEN. All of us. Shocker conservative women care about women's spaces etc. I mean why the fuck wouldn't they? They are WOMEN first and foremost.*

It's precisely the point that they care only about some issues facing all women. They don't care about issues faced only by women less privileged than them.

For example:
They don't care about women facing the threat of FGM. Indeed they actively support deporting them.
They don't care about women struggling to feed themselves and their children and what they might be coerced into as a result. Indeed they have increased the number in this precarious situation.

Also, some conservatives are actually against the rights of all women in some cases - e.g. abortion, contraception, sex education.

It's precisely the point that they care only about some issues facing all women. They don't care about issues faced only by women less privileged than them.

Kosmin, I don't expect conservatives to support all the same causes that I support as a socialist.

I do expect reasonable people to support child safeguarding, single-sex spaces, sport for women and girls. These should not be party-political issues.

It's shameful that liberal and leftwing parties have abandoned women's and children's rights in some important areas. If this leads women to vote for the one major party that is not promising to remove their single-sex rights, I blame the people who have made their parties unelectable.

Why 'even'?

Of course they do.

@thinkingaboutLangCleg
Kosmin, I don't expect conservatives to support all the same causes that I support as a socialist.

Of course not - otherwise they would be socialists! But I was just trying to explain what I considered to be the usual reasoning that conservatives/right-wingers couldn't be feminists.

*I do expect reasonable people to support child safeguarding, single-sex spaces, sport for women and girls. These should not be party-political issues.

It's shameful that liberal and leftwing parties have abandoned women's and children's rights in some important areas. If this leads women to vote for the one major party that is not promising to remove their single-sex rights, I blame the people who have made their parties unelectable.*

But why is that the threshold? Why, for example, is FGM considered unimportant, or acceptable to be a party political issue?

Kosmin, I agree about FGM. I remember what a battle it was, back in the 70s, to even get people to call it female genital mutilation instead of 'circumcision'. If there was any real political will, we would see perpetrators being convicted, in this country.

It's not at all unimportant. But I know that not many people will campaign about it, because they have limited time and energy, and prefer to put what they've got into causes that affect more people.

Abolition of women's single-sex spaces, on the other hand, potentially affects all women and girls. Single-sex spaces have never been controversial until now. We are being deprived of a right no one even questioned, in our lifetimes, until the past few years!

That's why it is one of the biggest issues we are facing at present. So, like many other feminists, I am glad of support from people I would not usually agree with.

You know, I don't think I have ever met a conservative who is supportive of FGM. I'm sure they mght exist, but I would think it's rare. I also don't think you'd find many who think the solution to FGM is deportation.

What you'd find is that they have different ideas about the best way to handle immigration for other reasons that are also important or that changing those policies won't ultimately make much difference to the root problems. It's not reasonable to think that women's issues are the only ones that politicians have to think about - they need to balance and try to do something about the needs of all kinds of people, often pulling in somewhat different directions.

They also might think that ultimately many socialist solutions to problems will disadvantage women just as they feel they disadvantage others.

There's some real circular thinking in insisting that conservative women can't be feminists because they have different ideas about what rights are important, and what the best way to make sure people have access to them. Is sex education by the state a right as such? Maybe. Or maybe the state educating people's kids about sex is an imposition on parental rights. Both are arguable positions and the latter is not a priori anti-woman.

I also doubt any conservatives (in particular Conservatives) support FGM. But they are very keen on deporting people and are indifferent to whether girls and women will suffer FGM after they are deported.

If you look at Conservative policies they are actually quite keen on "socialist" solutions, but just with a different objective to socialists. Their objective is to preserve wealth (with a particular focus on the property wealth of the middle class - hundreds of billions of pounds have been spent over the last decade on things like HTB and housing benefit, purely for the benefit of wealthy homeowners, landlords and builders). It might be true of the more traditional free-market right-wingers (people like Jacob Rees-Mogg, Steve Baker, John Redwood) that they don't believe in socialist solutions. But for most Conservatives it's just that they don't believe in the rights or welfare of the poor. And as this necessitates disregarding poor women, I think they probably can't be considered feminists. I don't think it's circular thinking, because it's not different ideas about what rights are important; it's different ideas about whose rights are important.

I don't think you'd find that perspective really describes the views of most conservatives.

Which perspective?
I gave the example of the Conservatives in the UK. But there are others - conservatives in the USA don't believe in the reproductive rights.

[quote Kosmin]@thinkingaboutLangCleg
Kosmin, I don't expect conservatives to support all the same causes that I support as a socialist.

Of course not - otherwise they would be socialists! But I was just trying to explain what I considered to be the usual reasoning that conservatives/right-wingers couldn't be feminists.

*I do expect reasonable people to support child safeguarding, single-sex spaces, sport for women and girls. These should not be party-political issues.

It's shameful that liberal and leftwing parties have abandoned women's and children's rights in some important areas. If this leads women to vote for the one major party that is not promising to remove their single-sex rights, I blame the people who have made their parties unelectable.*

But why is that the threshold? Why, for example, is FGM considered unimportant, or acceptable to be a party political issue?[/quote]
Fgm is illegal and has been for a fair few years.

There is a massive problem with actually upholding that law. Not the thread to go into it, involved topic and another thread would be better so as not to go off topic.

And again- this isn't party political. This is about women and girls.

Female voters come from all backgrounds, areas, levels of wealth, education, all sorts of different jobs lives interests.

And all sides of politics. Same as men do.

This is about WOMEN. There are women in all parties who speak out or who don't feel able to.

Look at the loudest voices etc. They are generally male.

Of course women can and do. Go along with the general tide. Genuinely support TWAW. don't really give a shit either way. Have more pressing things on their minds etc.

But still. Like any issue that is totally or predominantly impacting women/ girls / children.

Women in general do and always have been way more interested than men in general.

Obvious example. Big important issues for women and children are invariably seen as 'women's issues' rather than societal ones. That's not good.

I'm sick of this left right stuff. It's artificial. This is about all of us women and girls in the UK.

Kosmin your views as presented are lacking in depth and understanding.

This that lot goodies that lot baddies is puerile.

Obv it's not true that all conservative voters in England are evil meanies.

Same as it's not true that all lefties are fab when it comes to minority groups. (Long standing massive misogny issue. Labour anti semitism shitshow. For example).

'I also doubt any conservatives (in particular Conservatives) support FGM. But they are very keen on deporting people and are indifferent to whether girls and women will suffer FGM after they are deported.'

Yes of course. Windrush scandal. Situation in detention centres here. Illegality. Etc etc.

They are pretty even handed in their not caring though surely. Singling out fgm risk? From all the other shit? Don't get it.

@Kosmin

Which perspective? I gave the example of the Conservatives in the UK. But there are others - conservatives in the USA don't believe in the reproductive rights.

We're not American. We are totally different. Politics totally different. Don't understand why raised so much. Irrelevant to this conversation.

I think abortion is a topic with fairly mixed views? Off the top of my head the MPs I can think of who are very totally against are RC. Abortion is always a free vote. I don't think saying these say no these say yes is... It's not as simple as that.

I wrote to my MP about abortion NI before the law was changed. She came back with a long answer to my points and explained her views. She was Def not anti abortion, quite the opposite.

Woman
Conservative MP
Pretty well known and seen as a right winger not a moderate.

Sweeping statements contribute nothing to this conversation. And bringing the USA in is totally irrelevant.

@Kosmin

Which perspective? I gave the example of the Conservatives in the UK. But there are others - conservatives in the USA don't believe in the reproductive rights.

The idea that conservatives are keen to send women back to experience FGM is making some tenuous links.

Generally conservatives don't think saving people by taking in more refugees is a real viable solution to worldwide social problems, or that socialist approaches to poverty will work, or they think they will have other real downsides. They think people, including the poor, are better served by other approaches.

That's not the same as being indifferent.

@Kosmin
They don't care about women facing the threat of FGM.
Whilst not commenting on the rest of your posts, I think this is pretty wrong-headed of you to say. FGM was made illegal in this country in 1985 so by a Tory govt. I don't know anyone, of any sex or of any party that supports FGM in any way and I know quite a few Tory supporters.

The thing about misunderstanding or misrepresenting people's views to cast them as immoral, is if they know it's not true they just ignore you.

We experience this when we are told we are transphobic for not wanting male sex offenders in female prisons. We know it is blatantly untrue so no amount of monstering will achieve what the TRA want it too.

Likewise Raynor calling Tories scum isn't going to help us win the votes of a single person who doesn't already hold that belief. (and may lose some people who care about dehumanising language).

If the stories we tell ourselves about Conservative and their voters is that they are immoral then we give up the opportunity to understand their position and persuade them that a different approach would be better.

We waste our time loudly knocking down straw men whilst people quietly vote for other parties.

I'm a Labour member (though feeling gutted since conference week and feeling politically homeless. I understand why people join the Labour Party. But when I first joined I was baffled as to why people join the Conservatives - not just vote for them, but actually join. If it wasn't a searing need to battle injustice then what was it? What do they stand for?

I think being curious about that is important.

Not because they are necessarily right, but to understand the appeal.

I was listening to my friend who is sceptical about the Covid Vaccine (I am not). I was trying to understand her position. She was saying a similar thing, that the media/government/pro vaccine people say the people not taking the vaccine are selfish and anti community, antiscience etc, but those criticisms fall flat because her experience is that the people she's met are highly concerned citizens trying to engage with the science and concerned for public health and civil liberties. Not anti-social denialists at all.

What they are is highly sceptical of the official lime and susceptible to alternative explanations and (mis)interpretations of data (in my opinion). I don't agree with my friend about the vaccine, but I appreciate her insight.

Castigating people as the baddies and wronguns stops us being curious and asking the questions needed to understand.

[quote madisonbridges]@Kosmin
They don't care about women facing the threat of FGM.
Whilst not commenting on the rest of your posts, I think this is pretty wrong-headed of you to say. FGM was made illegal in this country in 1985 so by a Tory govt. I don't know anyone, of any sex or of any party that supports FGM in any way and I know quite a few Tory supporters.[/quote]
I wasn't referring to FGM in this country. I was referring to deporting girls who will then have FGM.

@LobsterNapkin
*The idea that conservatives are keen to send women back to experience FGM is making some tenuous links.

Generally conservatives don't think saving people by taking in more refugees is a real viable solution to worldwide social problems, or that socialist approaches to poverty will work, or they think they will have other real downsides. They think people, including the poor, are better served by other approaches.

That's not the same as being indifferent.*

I acknowledged that it is possible that they favour less government intervention as they believe that helps the poor. But I argue that the extensive and costly interventions to help the affluent and the elderly demonstrate that they do believe they work and they don't actually have a problem with this type of policy.

It isn't to a solution to take in girls at risk from FGM but it is a solution to take in people who want to leave Hong Kong?

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

I subscribe to Conservative Woman too despite joining momentum for a while BC I'm that left wing.

Once that would have boggled my mınd, Gncq. Now ıt makes perfect sense.

I always hated Thatcher’s claim that “There’s no such thing as society”. The essence of antisocial selfishness. But it’s also the essence of identity politics. That’s why I’m stunned by the left getting caught up in all that me-me-me-me-me stuff.

Now it’s Tories who are speaking up for women’s rights. And it’s Labour/ Greens / LibDems who assert the right of the loudest-shouting individuals to enforce obedience to their personal demands. Strange days.

I don't know much about it, but in the USA, the Republicans and the Democrats essentially swapped places on the political spectrum over civil rights. Maybe the same thing is happening here? (Or, as a lifelong lefty, I am clutching at straws )

The thing about misunderstanding or misrepresenting people's views to cast them as immoral, is if they know it's not true, they just ignore you

Really good point, Fukuraptor. Whether you're talking to the 'bad guys' or talking about them to someone else, the person you're talking to will think "You're wrong about that, so what else are you wrong about?".

Pterfodactyl, please pass me some of those straws to clutch at. My last shreds of faith in the Labour party sank when I saw tough legal-eagle Keir Starmer toeing the trans-lobby line like an office junior scared of losing his job.

@Fukuraptor

I don't think I said Conservatives (or conservatives) are immoral. I'm just trying to explain why I think they may be precluded from being feminists. I don't think it's immoral not to be a feminist.

"The thing about misunderstanding or misrepresenting people's views to cast them as immoral, is if they know it's not true they just ignore you."

I think this is incorrect. You can point out immorality without misrepresenting someone's views.

"But when I first joined I was baffled as to why people join the Conservatives - not just vote for them, but actually join."

I don't think it's particularly baffling. A lot of people vote for them because it is in their interests. Others vote because they are aspirational. Also the media bias is significant. Left-wing media outlets are in the minority. Even the left-wing tend to be critical of left-wingers unless they are moderate (e.g. consider The Guardian and The New Statesman on Corbyn).

"I was listening to my friend who is sceptical about the Covid Vaccine (I am not). I was trying to understand her position. She was saying a similar thing, that the media/government/pro vaccine people say the people not taking the vaccine are selfish and anti community, antiscience etc, but those criticisms fall flat because her experience is that the people she's met are highly concerned citizens trying to engage with the science and concerned for public health and civil liberties. Not anti-social denialists at all."

I think it's problematic for several reasons. You can't meaningfully engage with the science if you don't have the relevant scientific training and experience (people of average intelligence can follow some of the conclusions and explanations of scientists, but they aren't in a position to draw the conclusions themselves). Even if you could, how would you know which fields of science to try to engage with?
There is probably less reason for scepticism of public health than many other issues. The scientists developing the vaccines would be harming themselves and everyone they care about if vaccines were harmful. There are examples of authorities lying about specific public health issues - e.g. lying to people about whether their water is safe to drink, whether it is safe to live near toxic waste. Authorities have an incentive to lie here because it only affects disadvantaged groups.

Of course people are entitled to choose not to take the vaccine, saying they believe the risk of the vaccine to them personally exceeds the risk to them of the virus. But that is selfish. Similarly it is selfish for people who took the vaccine to seek to exclude those who didn't. But it is inconsistent for the unvaccinated to assert that they have a right to be selfish and others do not.
In any case, such measures have long existed. Various vaccinations have long been required to travel and I don't recall protests.

"What they are is highly sceptical of the official lime and susceptible to alternative explanations and (mis)interpretations of data (in my opinion). I don't agree with my friend about the vaccine, but I appreciate her insight."

If they have misinterpreted the data, they haven't provided any insight. Similarly, if my points above are valid, they should be equally - if not more - concerned with other issues. I think this should be pointed out. That implies their motives weren't bad, as you say, but that their conclusions do not follow.

"Castigating people as the baddies and wronguns stops us being curious and asking the questions needed to understand."

Name calling is bad; reasoned disagreements are good.

Pterfodactyl -- I love your name, by the way. Thank god for vipers and dinosaurs.

"Conservatives and gc feminists agree" is not news.

"I always hated Thatcher’s claim that “There’s no such thing as society”.

This is one of those quotations that has achieved iconic status, but is almost entirely misunderstood.

What Thatcher actually said was:" And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

She's breaking down the notion that "society" is some kind of omniscient entity. She's saying there are only individuals and families, and when you demand something of "society", you are demanding it of other individuals and families. There is no "overlord" that gives you what you want with no effect to the people around you.

It's actually a rather a communitarian argument, and there's traces of something similar in both socialist and communist attitudes in the Eastern Bloc. To refuse to work in "socialist" Poland meant you were an "arsehole" because you were demanding resources from your neighbours without fulfilling your obligations in return. In the USSR, such behaviour meant you were a "social parasite", and it was classed as a political crime.

It's always bothered me that "there's no such thing as society" became the maxim of evil that it did. I suspect it was a victim of misrepresentation for a reason, largely because it did echo Soviet approaches and exposed an obvious gap within left wing thought in the 80s (that was still working with the prewar notion of "the bosses" and "the mill lords", when, in reality, this landscape had entirely collapsed by 1979). It also exposed another awkward aspect to Thatcher herself: that she wasn't really a Conservative thinker. She was actually more of a radical Manchester Liberal.

Aspects of the political left have always been motivated by self interest. The trade union movement is classic for this; many prohibited postwar immigrants and refugees from joining in the 50s and 60s, and the operation of closed shops meant such immigrants struggled to find reasonable paid manual labour.

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

The thing about misunderstanding or misrepresenting people's views to cast them as immoral, is if they know it's not true, they just ignore you

Really good point, Fukuraptor. Whether you're talking to the 'bad guys' or talking about them to someone else, the person you're talking to will think "You're wrong about that, so what else are you wrong about?".

I think that may have happened with Blexit in the USA, but I don't think it's happening in the UK. Most people who are disappointed with Labour/Greens/Lib Dems on women's rights are not questioning their positions on other issues.