Reasons for not moving right like young men

[Warmlight1]

Are women put off the right because of outright boorishness and right wing female Mps who are promoted withing a very constrained patriarchy and consequently end up not making sense? Is it also to do with the ingressing on women's right by the ultra religious?
Are public services more important to women than men? Was specifically female leadership significant in New Zealand during the pandemic and ultimately safer and was that about gender?
Or something else?
Brexit?
Why is there a difference of direction?

Data?
Conservatives are anti rape? Now I have a bridge to sell you.

Err, you need more workers for all of that. Where are they coming from???

I note your lack of concern for young women in the SWP whose complaints of rape were dismissed on the basis that the leading member they complained against was leading campaigns against "the far right".

Some prominent members even said the young women making complaints of rape were state assets trying to frame the leader.

This might not mean much in the grand scheme of things - the SWP is a rather small group these days - except that it runs campaigns against "the right" which are funded by the trade unions, which have Labour MPs appearing on their platforms, and which are endorsed by dozens of gormless left wing celebrities.

Now tell me again that being on the left means you're on the side of women.

You haven't provided any evidence the labour part supports rape culture. In terms of the specifics, is there any evidence these women were prevented from reporting or prosecuting the alleged crimes? Did the labour party prevent them?
Is there evidence of widespread systemic evidence of wrong doing that has been proven in court?

As opposed to decades of conservatives & their parties not only scoffing at rape statistics but doing eff all about it.

Again I note that @Gretel346 makes broad statements about everyone about people outside the left wing tribe, while nitpicking over women in the left wing activist space who have been raped.

You're talking here about people I know, and you're coming very close to open victim blaming. Particularly when it comes to vulnerable young women who were told by their own organisation not to go to the police, and when said organisation continues to receive financial support from the labour movement.

Allegations unproven remain allegations not fact. Are you seriously suggesting society no longer requires evidence & due process to determine guilt? Or does this only apply when convenient?

You don't seem to understand how civilised society remains civilised.

Please tell me again how Neil Gaiman is the supreme gentleman, until a court formally finds him otherwise.

Again, your strictures on how we can only believe allegations which have been proven in court seems to only apply to members of your political tribe.

I do not believe that political tribe has a monopoly on virtue. I'm too familiar with it.

In any case, I have spent far too much of my life arguing with SWP fellow travellers. Sin é.

I think you might be a little confused about what a strawman is.

This is an excellent example of how cultism compromises critical thinking skills. Whilst gender critical ideology has some very good points like all ideologies it's vulnerable to purity extremism where zealots will get into bed with anyone who tell them what they want to hear despite having a long history of being of serious harm to them.

You are historically illiterate, please try reading some history about the political left. No hierarchy my ass.

And if you think that hierarchies always put white people at the top, you also have a massively narrow view of reality.

To each his own. Everyone has a different views on this topic. I personally believe that women deserve to have the same rights as men.

Yeah? Please link which policies in recent times hurt women.

This is an excellent example of how cultism compromises critical thinking skills. Whilst gender critical ideology has some very good points like all ideologies it's vulnerable to purity extremism where zealots will get into bed with anyone who tell them what they want to hear despite having a long history of being of serious harm to them.

Pot kettle springs to mind

Gender critical "ideology". Just love it.

There are bits of this I do not disagree with in that Reform.leaders have a policy of triggering racism - whereas It's possibly a matter of indifference to them - but the indifference is born of not having money worries if you know what I mean. They'll relate to.people who are wealthy like themselves of whatever colour but the rest of us are much of a muchness. There are more white people so they are happy to sway the larger number in that basis by playing to the worst in them.

As for people's real beefs- well I'm not with you on that. I know the beefs because I pay the same bills, access the same services, same schools-
I'm mystified why anyone would imagine Nigel has those solutions. All they wants to do is stop the state supporting the vulnerable. Generally. And they are telling us this.

How are you defining 'Gender Critical Ideology'?

Which rights do men have that women don't?

If the SCJ is unenforced, then men have a 'right' to access non consenting women in a state of undress, and undressing for men's gratification is a compulsory part of many job roles as the Darlington Nurses and Sandie Peggie found. Wholly binary sex based privilege, no reciprocal impact on men.

And that would go with the right of men to have boundaries and women to not.

And men currently with the judgment and law being ignored, have the right to privacy and dignity that women do not share, with 'acceptable risk' in prisons being considered when putting men where men's wishes and best interests indicate them going to women's prisons.

Lesbians continue to have no right to meet alone without men who want to date and have sex with lesbian women and don't agree with a woman's right to homosexuality. Gay men don't have anything like equal issues there.

And women continue to be bullied, harassed and doxed when they try to set up a group for women survivors as we've seen this weekend in Brighton. Men can have whatever groups they like; in Brighton for example male rape survivors of all possible needs and identities have a choice of support groups, single and mixed sex. Women have none.

All fundamentally summed up really by the law and supreme court being ignored by the government and establishment when it would protect women but inconvenience men with extremely dodgy agendas and no respect of any kind for women. It fixes a binary, sexed hierarchy in law.

Oh and to speak about about gender related issues in public without being harassed, threatened, doxed, screamed at and arrested - that's one men have, but women don't.

And men apparently also have the right to threaten to rape and kill people freely and have it dismissed as nothing to mind about. That's another goodie. Women get arrested and charged for malicious communications for even stating facts if they're facts men dislike.

That's an interesting take on it, given that one of the main effects of large amounts of immigration is to suppress wages, and avoid the need for government investment in things like training. Which are generally significant concerns of less well off people.

Slapping the term "racist" on people who feel the effects of that is a very clever move by those who benefit from cheaper services and lower taxes.

As for people's real beefs- well I'm not with you on that. I know the beefs because I pay the same bills, access the same services, same schools-
I'm mystified why anyone would imagine Nigel has those solutions. All they wants to do is stop the state supporting the vulnerable. Generally. And they are telling us this.

I do not believe that Nigel Farage and Reform are the solutions to any of the problems which we are facing in the modern world. But, if not, who is? The mainstream political parties of the UK have proven themselves to be fundamentally unable to govern in an effective way in recent years, so it is wholly understandable as to why people might look for alternatives, such as Reform or the Green Party. Whilst I would never vote for Reform, I can understand the psychology of hope, desperation, and disenchantment which drives people towards the party.

It's also a way to send a message for many. How else are voters supposed to influence parties who continue to support policies they don't want?

I used to know a fellow who didn't vote at all because he thought that the main parties were simply representing a set of barely differerntiated policies to give an illusion of choice to the electorate. Like a mum offering a toddler the two things she's willing to accept, but certainly not anything she doesn't want the child to have.

Which is reasonable for a parent but not in politics which is meant to serve the voters.

At the time, I thought his opinion was extreme, I'm not so sure now.

The mainstream political parties of the UK have proven themselves to be fundamentally unable to govern in an effective way in recent years

Elite failure is a real thing. Nothing works. The Victorians built amazing infrastructure and currently the UK can't even maintain the infrastructure it's got, never mind improve it.

We've got the biggest state and the highest tax burden since WW2, and fuck knows what the money's being spent on because improvements in services are not obvious. I'm not yet seeing a viable plan coming out of the right, but the left isn't thinking beyond tax more, spend more and have an even bigger state (whoever replaces Starmer will almost certainly take that line) or Green theories about degrowth.

The two legacy parties have so discredited themselves that it's possible one or both of them could disappear. That's symptom rather than cause, but given how durable they've been, it's a big symptom.

It's not all a UK thing either. We're probably late to the party if you look at European dysfunction.

Have read many things pretty much confirming our leaders can only do performative politics, or appear to be dynamic and epoch making by one signature human rights win per premiership.
Cameron had same sex marriage.
May had domestic slavery.
Johnson interestingly got things done, like vaxx rollout, and Brexit, so it is still possible to force change.
Truss had her lettuce.
Sunak had FE Free Speech and the Article 20 win against Sturgeon, would have had banning smoking and a version of military service.
Starmer has Assisted Suicide and votes for 16-17s.
Other than Johnson with vaccines and Brexit, and Sunak with FE Free speech, very little else from the last 15 years amounts to a hill of beans re unblocking the British state.
Farage will be promising a lot...
And it may be that if he communicates his planned changes as the biggest overhaul of the state since Thatcher, he'll catch the zeitgeist.