Women Can’t Win
By Emma.
Can you imagine the fuss if there would be if every time the Cabinet discussed a policy, every single time, Harriet Harman, Yvette Cooper and Caroline Flint tried to start a discussion about its impact on women? They would be accused of time wasting at best. That lovely old nickname would come out in the press as the leaks inevitably occurred.
So you’d think the Labour dinosaurs would be happier about a separate meeting of the Female members of the Shadow Cabinet to discuss David Cameron’s women troubles and how to capitalise on them. Reading the actual facts (which are careful hidden between the bigotry) in this Mail article it seems this group have met twice so far this year – once in Summer and once in the Autumn. Seems to me a quarterly meeting to discuss the impact on women of the Caolition’s policies and how to translate this into political campaigning and capital is an eminently sensible idea.
But no, some Labour men are up in arms. Luke Bozier described the move on Twitter as “ridiculous and divisive”. Bleating on as so many of them are apt to do any time Labour moves towards positive equality.
Sadly, they don’t seem to have any problem with the phrase quoted in the article from someone with access to to Shadow Cabinet meetings who actually described this move as “a load of politically correct, feminist claptrap”. So this is either a Shadow Cabinet member or a senior Party official using the term “feminist” as a stand alone derogatory. But of course its the idea that – in a world where that is accepted without comment – women might feel more comfortable exploring some ideas without the presence of such men that is divisive.
Please imagine for a moment how it feels to have a colleague describe the movement for the advancement of your equality in what remains a vastly unequal world described in such terms? My heart has sunk and my blood is boiling. Imagine the phrase used instead were “a load of politically correct, anti-racist claptrap”. There would – quite rightly – be outrage. But no, the only outrage this morning is at the fact that some women don’t feel it would be helpful to discuss the best way to campaign and govern for women in such an environment.
If this group works, what it will do is come up with areas of policy and messaging that will ultimately appeal to women. This will ultimately help to advance the cause of all Labour politicians, even the dinosaur quoted in that disgusting piece. Which is a shame, but one I’ll live with if it means better and more robust policies on the day to day issues that affect women. But if I ever find out who he is, give him five minutes alone with this feminist. I’ll show him what happened when I trap his clappers.
Sunday, October 30th 2011 at 11:59
I think you’re bang on the money with this. (I’m male btw)
One question that occurs to me though – inevitably (sadly) in a sitiuation where we have a women only group, or as you (sort of) suggest perhaps a black only group – there’s going to be negative publicity in the Tory dominated mainstream media – how do we combat that ? It would be a shame to avoid those meetings for fear that our opponents might spin our inentions badly ? I don’t have an answer – I just wonder.
You might have a look back at the Mail article, and check the photo links down the right hand side of the screen – we have everything from wardrobe malfunctions, see through dresses, to the new face of Tesco bra’s. No stereotyping there then
Keep the faith
Sunday, October 30th 2011 at 12:06
I think the thing to do is say “yeah, and….?” in the face of that kind of attack from the Tories. If we refuse to take it seriously – while at the same time highlighting the problems they themselves have with women and BME groups they look defensive and we look modern.
Saturday, November 5th 2011 at 18:24
Emma, I’m with you on this – it is an eminently sensible idea (straightforward and pragmatic) to seek and utilise pertinent extra input from female Labour MPs.
However, as one ugly problem of the New Labour era was its top-down elitist authoritarian attitude, perhaps the group’s membership shouldn’t be restricted to members of the shadow cabinet only, but should be open to shadow junior ministers and back-bench MPs – maybe with back-benchers choosing 3 or 4 reps for them at such meetings??
The hostility of dinosaurs and advocates of Progress is a sign that something is likely to be good and ultimately democratic. Control freaks get uptight and defensive whenever anything arises which is not under their control; they’re driven by negativity and fears; they don’t like their power to be diminished or challenged; they seek to preserve any privileged position they’ve worked to build for themselves.
The odd thing is that while they have no desire to listen to disabled people on welfare issues or to Unions on employment issues and so on, they have willingly listened to professional lobbyists for the banking sector, oil industry, pharmaceuticals etc.
I haven’t looked at the Mail article, but it might be a case of the Mail wanting to exploit any division within Labour ranks (i.e. this story is only a story if Labour argue amongst themselves).
Saturday, November 5th 2011 at 18:35
Yes I think there’s certainly something to the fact that the Mail tried to make it about an attack on Ed’s leadership, which it clearly isn’t.