Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
SeanT voted Lib Dem in 2010
Did he vote LD because he believed in their polices, or for tactical purposes?
Both I believe.
What did he agree with. As I added on to my last post, the LDs presented themselves as socially liberal, and agreeing with a kind of gender equality (feminism, basically) that I doubt 95% of PB signs up to. The LDs are also notably pro-EU, as well.
Both and re your point about the EU
Also SeanT believes in ever closer union in the EU, to combat the rise of China.
Again, on the China thing, hasn't he said he wants us to get out of EU, and that the EU's doomed etc?
On the 'both' point, so SeanT is a socially liberal feminist? Really?
SeanT is very socially liberal, you should see his policy on drugs
That's a socially liberal position, but it doesn't mean he's socially liberal as a whole. I have certain right-wing positions (e.g. I believe in the nuclear family), but I'm not right wing as a whole.
@MyBurningEars Sex-positive feminism isn't centred on men viewing women (especially women under the age of 30) in a sexualised way though. It's about women's right to their own sexual expression.
I don't need a lecture on the issue. Perhaps I ought to have slapped a "thinly veiled irony" tag on that :-)
But I think everyone would agree that SeanT is very much in favour of female sexuality.
Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
SeanT voted Lib Dem in 2010
Did he vote LD because he believed in their polices, or for tactical purposes?
Both I believe.
What did he agree with. As I added on to my last post, the LDs presented themselves as socially liberal, and agreeing with a kind of gender equality (feminism, basically) that I doubt 95% of PB signs up to. The LDs are also notably pro-EU, as well.
Both and re your point about the EU
Also SeanT believes in ever closer union in the EU, to combat the rise of China.
Again, on the China thing, hasn't he said he wants us to get out of EU, and that the EU's doomed etc?
On the 'both' point, so SeanT is a socially liberal feminist? Really?
SeanT is very socially liberal, you should see his policy on drugs
That's a socially liberal position, but it doesn't mean he's socially liberal as a whole. I have certain right-wing positions (e.g. I believe in the nuclear family), but I'm not right wing as a whole.
@MyBurningEars Sex-positive feminism isn't centred on men viewing women (especially women under the age of 30) in a sexualised way though. It's about women's right to their own sexual expression.
I am probably the most socially liberal person in the UK, I know a fellow social liberal when I see one.
No TSE. I am the most socially liberal person in the UK I think you're the most socially liberal Tory I've ever encountered though.
Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
SeanT voted Lib Dem in 2010
Did he vote LD because he believed in their polices, or for tactical purposes?
Both I believe.
What did he agree with. As I added on to my last post, the LDs presented themselves as socially liberal, and agreeing with a kind of gender equality (feminism, basically) that I doubt 95% of PB signs up to. The LDs are also notably pro-EU, as well.
Both and re your point about the EU
Also SeanT believes in ever closer union in the EU, to combat the rise of China.
Again, on the China thing, hasn't he said he wants us to get out of EU, and that the EU's doomed etc?
On the 'both' point, so SeanT is a socially liberal feminist? Really?
I think that SeanT is famous for his inconsistency! It wouldn't surprise me at all if he voted LD.
Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
SeanT voted Lib Dem in 2010
Did he vote LD because he believed in their polices, or for tactical purposes?
Both I believe.
What did he agree with. As I added on to my last post, the LDs presented themselves as socially liberal, and agreeing with a kind of gender equality (feminism, basically) that I doubt 95% of PB signs up to. The LDs are also notably pro-EU, as well.
Both and re your point about the EU
Also SeanT believes in ever closer union in the EU, to combat the rise of China.
Again, on the China thing, hasn't he said he wants us to get out of EU, and that the EU's doomed etc?
On the 'both' point, so SeanT is a socially liberal feminist? Really?
SeanT is very socially liberal, you should see his policy on drugs
I recall him complaining at the time that the editors forced him to water the piece down by the addition of the final wishy-washy paragraph. His intent was rather more full-blooded.
(I might be misremembering, but I think he had a longer version of the piece at another magazine somewhere. The Week maybe?)
I believe so.
SeanT also has some very liberal views on the criminal justice system (from his own experiences)
I don't know SeanT personally but my impression is of a laissez-faire hardliner, a sort of Pim Fortuyn redux: Everyone should be free to do what they like, sauve qui peut, and society ought to be structured only in so far as it safeguards that perspective I often find his writings here simultaneously repugnant, entertaining and admirable
Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
SeanT voted Lib Dem in 2010
Did he vote LD because he believed in their polices, or for tactical purposes?
Both I believe.
What did he agree with. As I added on to my last post, the LDs presented themselves as socially liberal, and agreeing with a kind of gender equality (feminism, basically) that I doubt 95% of PB signs up to. The LDs are also notably pro-EU, as well.
Both and re your point about the EU
Also SeanT believes in ever closer union in the EU, to combat the rise of China.
Again, on the China thing, hasn't he said he wants us to get out of EU, and that the EU's doomed etc?
On the 'both' point, so SeanT is a socially liberal feminist? Really?
SeanT is very socially liberal, you should see his policy on drugs
That's a socially liberal position, but it doesn't mean he's socially liberal as a whole. I have certain right-wing positions (e.g. I believe in the nuclear family), but I'm not right wing as a whole.
@MyBurningEars Sex-positive feminism isn't centred on men viewing women (especially women under the age of 30) in a sexualised way though. It's about women's right to their own sexual expression.
I don't need a lecture on the issue. Perhaps I ought to have slapped a "thinly veiled irony" tag on that :-)
But I think everyone would agree that SeanT is very much in favour of female sexuality.
I don't know. Whenever I've seen his posts on this, it's always been about viewing women in a sexualised way - (such as going on about how he's managed to bag a younger a woman).
Also, I wasn't trying to lecture to you, I'm sorry if it came off that way.
I've had debates with PBers who have told me they are anti-feminist. Everytime feminism is talked about on this site, it's always in a negative way. Would you call yourself a feminist?
Of course not. I can't off hand think of any 'ist' that I would call myself. I don't do naive views of the world.
However, it wasn't really that bit of what you said that I was referring to. It's your spectacular ignorance of Conservatives which is so striking.
Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
SeanT voted Lib Dem in 2010
Did he vote LD because he believed in their polices, or for tactical purposes?
Both I believe.
What did he agree with. As I added on to my last post, the LDs presented themselves as socially liberal, and agreeing with a kind of gender equality (feminism, basically) that I doubt 95% of PB signs up to. The LDs are also notably pro-EU, as well.
Both and re your point about the EU
Also SeanT believes in ever closer union in the EU, to combat the rise of China.
Again, on the China thing, hasn't he said he wants us to get out of EU, and that the EU's doomed etc?
On the 'both' point, so SeanT is a socially liberal feminist? Really?
SeanT is very socially liberal, you should see his policy on drugs
That's a socially liberal position, but it doesn't mean he's socially liberal as a whole. I have certain right-wing positions (e.g. I believe in the nuclear family), but I'm not right wing as a whole.
@MyBurningEars Sex-positive feminism isn't centred on men viewing women (especially women under the age of 30) in a sexualised way though. It's about women's right to their own sexual expression.
I fully support a woman's right to sexual expression ... and offer my internet browsing history as evidence of my research into the matter.
Oh goody, Shadsy's evens on a shad cab resignation by the end of Monday looking good...
If Corbyn whips his party without agreement with his shadow cabinet then it shows he cares little (well not in the least) for the regular tenets of cabinet government and democracy. It would show he is happy to use this issue (a very tall totem for his cultist followers) as a lever in his policy of taking over the party on behalf of these entryist.
Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
SeanT voted Lib Dem in 2010
Did he vote LD because he believed in their polices, or for tactical purposes?
Both I believe.
What did he agree with. As I added on to my last post, the LDs presented themselves as socially liberal, and agreeing with a kind of gender equality (feminism, basically) that I doubt 95% of PB signs up to. The LDs are also notably pro-EU, as well.
Edit: Hasn't he said he wants us to leave the EU, though?
What makes you think that about gender equality?
Because most PBers don't agree with 'gender equality' in the way feminists see it. There are quite few PBers who are openly anti-feminist. Meanwhile, most parties on the Left see feminism and gender equality as the same thing. The Right (bar Theresa May) don't.
I've had debates with PBers who have told me they are anti-feminist. Everytime feminism is talked about on this site, it's always in a negative way. Would you call yourself a feminist?
Of course not. I can't off hand think of any 'ist' that I would call myself. I don't do naive views of the world.
However, it wasn't really that bit of what you said that I was referring to. It's your spectacular ignorance of Conservatives which is so striking.
That bit is pretty much intrinsic to what I was saying - which, in other words was that the Conservative party in general isn't feminist bar Thersea May. I don't see exactly what's wrong with that. Cameron isn't a feminist, and Thatcher sure as hell wasn't.
Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
SeanT voted Lib Dem in 2010
Did he vote LD because he believed in their polices, or for tactical purposes?
Both I believe.
What did he agree with. As I added on to my last post, the LDs presented themselves as socially liberal, and agreeing with a kind of gender equality (feminism, basically) that I doubt 95% of PB signs up to. The LDs are also notably pro-EU, as well.
Both and re your point about the EU
Also SeanT believes in ever closer union in the EU, to combat the rise of China.
Again, on the China thing, hasn't he said he wants us to get out of EU, and that the EU's doomed etc?
On the 'both' point, so SeanT is a socially liberal feminist? Really?
SeanT is very socially liberal, you should see his policy on drugs
That's a socially liberal position, but it doesn't mean he's socially liberal as a whole. I have certain right-wing positions (e.g. I believe in the nuclear family), but I'm not right wing as a whole.
@MyBurningEars Sex-positive feminism isn't centred on men viewing women (especially women under the age of 30) in a sexualised way though. It's about women's right to their own sexual expression.
I fully support a woman's right to sexual expression ... and offer my internet browsing history as evidence of my research into the matter.
Again, sex-positive feminism isn't about men's sexualisation of women.
Still carrying a torch? Now there's a stomach churning prospect.
I feel like I'm the only person in the nation heartwarmed that Corbyn and Abbott have remained such good friends and compatriots all these years after their brief relationship ended.
Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
SeanT voted Lib Dem in 2010
Did he vote LD because he believed in their polices, or for tactical purposes?
Both I believe.
What did he agree with. As I added on to my last post, the LDs presented themselves as socially liberal, and agreeing with a kind of gender equality (feminism, basically) that I doubt 95% of PB signs up to. The LDs are also notably pro-EU, as well.
Both and re your point about the EU
Also SeanT believes in ever closer union in the EU, to combat the rise of China.
Again, on the China thing, hasn't he said he wants us to get out of EU, and that the EU's doomed etc?
On the 'both' point, so SeanT is a socially liberal feminist? Really?
SeanT is very socially liberal, you should see his policy on drugs
That's a socially liberal position, but it doesn't mean he's socially liberal as a whole. I have certain right-wing positions (e.g. I believe in the nuclear family), but I'm not right wing as a whole.
@MyBurningEars Sex-positive feminism isn't centred on men viewing women (especially women under the age of 30) in a sexualised way though. It's about women's right to their own sexual expression.
I fully support a woman's right to sexual expression ... and offer my internet browsing history as evidence of my research into the matter.
Again, sex-positive feminism isn't about men's sexualisation of women.
That bit is pretty much intrinsic to what I was saying - which, in other words was that the Conservative party in general isn't feminist bar Thersea May. I don't see exactly what's wrong with that. Cameron isn't a feminist, and Thatcher sure as hell wasn't.
I've no idea why you've latched on to Theresa May in that context.
You really ought to meet a few Conservative women politicians.
As for who is a 'feminist', it all depends what you mean. No doubt you'll define it to suit your theory. Maggie Thatcher may or may not have been a feminist - she didn't like the word, as I recall - but she was certainly the leading example of breaking the ''glass ceiling" of any woman in a major Western country in the twentieth century.
I've had debates with PBers who have told me they are anti-feminist. Everytime feminism is talked about on this site, it's always in a negative way. Would you call yourself a feminist?
Of course not. I can't off hand think of any 'ist' that I would call myself. I don't do naive views of the world.
However, it wasn't really that bit of what you said that I was referring to. It's your spectacular ignorance of Conservatives which is so striking.
That bit is pretty much intrinsic to what I was saying - which, in other words was that the Conservative party in general isn't feminist bar Thersea May. I don't see exactly what's wrong with that. Cameron isn't a feminist, and Thatcher sure as hell wasn't.
How female leaders has the Tory party elected, and how many female leaders has say the Labour Party elected?
I've had debates with PBers who have told me they are anti-feminist. Everytime feminism is talked about on this site, it's always in a negative way. Would you call yourself a feminist?
Of course not. I can't off hand think of any 'ist' that I would call myself. I don't do naive views of the world.
However, it wasn't really that bit of what you said that I was referring to. It's your spectacular ignorance of Conservatives which is so striking.
IF neither a realist, nor a pragamatist you certainly are a loyalist. ;-)
I've had debates with PBers who have told me they are anti-feminist. Everytime feminism is talked about on this site, it's always in a negative way. Would you call yourself a feminist?
Of course not. I can't off hand think of any 'ist' that I would call myself. I don't do naive views of the world.
However, it wasn't really that bit of what you said that I was referring to. It's your spectacular ignorance of Conservatives which is so striking.
That bit is pretty much intrinsic to what I was saying - which, in other words was that the Conservative party in general isn't feminist bar Thersea May. I don't see exactly what's wrong with that. Cameron isn't a feminist, and Thatcher sure as hell wasn't.
I agree about Cameron. I came to that conclusion after his gay marriage speech at conference all those years ago.
Still, he's way more of a feminist than thatcher ever was.
I've had debates with PBers who have told me they are anti-feminist. Everytime feminism is talked about on this site, it's always in a negative way. Would you call yourself a feminist?
Of course not. I can't off hand think of any 'ist' that I would call myself. I don't do naive views of the world.
However, it wasn't really that bit of what you said that I was referring to. It's your spectacular ignorance of Conservatives which is so striking.
That bit is pretty much intrinsic to what I was saying - which, in other words was that the Conservative party in general isn't feminist bar Thersea May. I don't see exactly what's wrong with that. Cameron isn't a feminist, and Thatcher sure as hell wasn't.
I think the Tory position that you suggest exists is that all people are different, and that gender doesn't (or perhaps shouldn't) matter. Gender often homogenises unnecessarily, and the pursuit of gender equality often actively discriminates. That is, at least, this Tory's position.
For example, Thatcher was a very good leader of her party from an electoral POV, more potent than any of the alternatives until the early 90s. Therefore she became (and remained) leader until she became a liability. That is equality.
Saying that such and such should be leader or deputy because he/she is male/female and there has to be representation of both genders is, like the suggestion that there has to be 11 women on a board of 22, because that is equality of numbers, pretty silly.
That bit is pretty much intrinsic to what I was saying - which, in other words was that the Conservative party in general isn't feminist bar Thersea May. I don't see exactly what's wrong with that. Cameron isn't a feminist, and Thatcher sure as hell wasn't.
I've no idea why you've latched on to Theresa May in that context.
You really ought to meet a few Conservative women politicians.
As for who is a 'feminist', it all depends what you mean. No doubt you'll define it to suit your theory. Maggie Thatcher may or may not have been a feminist - she didn't like the word, as I recall - but she was certainly the leading example of breaking the ''glass ceiling" of any woman in a major Western country in the twentieth century.
Because May has identified as a feminist that's why. I know Mensch has identified as a feminist in the past, but she's no longer an MP. Leaving only one other person (whose name I can't recall but I know she wrote an article about Tories and gender equality in the Guardian some years ago) who has done so. I define someone as 'feminist' by whether they self-identify one as not. I don't deny Thatcher's achievements, but she was always very critical of feminism, so I'm hardly going to see her as one.
Neither a realist, nor a pragamatist you certainly are a loyalist.
Are yes, of course -realist and pragmatist, I'll sign up to those!
As to being a loyalist - no, actually not at all. I can understand why people are confused about this, because I seem to support Cameron a lot. That's because he agrees with me on most issues (I got there first!), not because of party loyalty.
I've had debates with PBers who have told me they are anti-feminist. Everytime feminism is talked about on this site, it's always in a negative way. Would you call yourself a feminist?
Of course not. I can't off hand think of any 'ist' that I would call myself. I don't do naive views of the world.
However, it wasn't really that bit of what you said that I was referring to. It's your spectacular ignorance of Conservatives which is so striking.
That bit is pretty much intrinsic to what I was saying - which, in other words was that the Conservative party in general isn't feminist bar Thersea May. I don't see exactly what's wrong with that. Cameron isn't a feminist, and Thatcher sure as hell wasn't.
How female leaders has the Tory party elected, and how many female leaders has say the Labour Party elected?
The point is that they don't (generally) identify as feminists. You can't be feminists if you don't even agree with the ideology.
That bit is pretty much intrinsic to what I was saying - which, in other words was that the Conservative party in general isn't feminist bar Thersea May. I don't see exactly what's wrong with that. Cameron isn't a feminist, and Thatcher sure as hell wasn't.
I've no idea why you've latched on to Theresa May in that context.
You really ought to meet a few Conservative women politicians.
As for who is a 'feminist', it all depends what you mean. No doubt you'll define it to suit your theory. Maggie Thatcher may or may not have been a feminist - she didn't like the word, as I recall - but she was certainly the leading example of breaking the ''glass ceiling" of any woman in a major Western country in the twentieth century.
"The feminists hate me, don't they? And I don't blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison!" - M. H. Thatcher, quoted by Paul Johnson in Failure of the Feminists, The Spectator, 12 March, 2011.
I've had debates with PBers who have told me they are anti-feminist. Everytime feminism is talked about on this site, it's always in a negative way. Would you call yourself a feminist?
Of course not. I can't off hand think of any 'ist' that I would call myself. I don't do naive views of the world.
However, it wasn't really that bit of what you said that I was referring to. It's your spectacular ignorance of Conservatives which is so striking.
That bit is pretty much intrinsic to what I was saying - which, in other words was that the Conservative party in general isn't feminist bar Thersea May. I don't see exactly what's wrong with that. Cameron isn't a feminist, and Thatcher sure as hell wasn't.
I think the Tory position (or at least, this Tory's position) is that all people are different, and that gender doesn't (or perhaps shouldn't) matter. Gender often homogenises unnecessarily, and the pursuit of gender equality often actively discriminates.
For example, Thatcher was a very good leader of her party from an electoral POV, more potent than any of the alternatives until the early 90s. Therefore she became (and remained) leader until she became a liability. That is equality.
Saying that such and such should be leader or deputy because he/she is male/female and there has to be representation of both genders is, like the suggestion that there has to be 11 women on a board of 22, because that is equality of numbers, pretty silly.
I think we men tend to see feminism as making us the potential victims of discrimination where none ought to exist, while women are more likely to see it as compensating for the discrimination that does exist.
Oh goody, Shadsy's evens on a shad cab resignation by the end of Monday looking good...
If Corbyn whips his party without agreement with his shadow cabinet then it shows he cares little (well not in the least) for the regular tenets of cabinet government and democracy. It would show he is happy to use this issue (a very tall totem for his cultist followers) as a lever in his policy of taking over the party on behalf of these entryist.
It was interesting that, on Marr this morning, Jehadi Jez excluded who determines whether to whip the party from any suggestion of democracy - me he said without batting an eyelid. Marr really is a wimp - he didn't challenge JJ on anything. Maybe it was because he dressed up for him.
Still carrying a torch? Now there's a stomach churning prospect.
I feel like I'm the only person in the nation heartwarmed that Corbyn and Abbott have remained such good friends and compatriots all these years after their brief relationship ended.
I suspect that you actually may be that person.
I balance things out by thinking Corbyn is an awful leader and is a fanatic (if personally polite at least), and Abbott is mean spirited and, unfortunately, a bit dim if her media performances are any indication
I've had debates with PBers who have told me they are anti-feminist. Everytime feminism is talked about on this site, it's always in a negative way. Would you call yourself a feminist?
Of course not. I can't off hand think of any 'ist' that I would call myself. I don't do naive views of the world.
However, it wasn't really that bit of what you said that I was referring to. It's your spectacular ignorance of Conservatives which is so striking.
That bit is pretty much intrinsic to what I was saying - which, in other words was that the Conservative party in general isn't feminist bar Thersea May. I don't see exactly what's wrong with that. Cameron isn't a feminist, and Thatcher sure as hell wasn't.
I agree about Cameron. I came to that conclusion after his gay marriage speech at conference all those years ago.
Still, he's way more of a feminist than thatcher ever was.
I've always sensed it. Still, you are right that he is far more socially liberal than Thatcher.
I think the Tory position that you suggest exists is that all people are different, and that gender doesn't (or perhaps shouldn't) matter. Gender often homogenises unnecessarily, and the pursuit of gender equality often actively discriminates. That is, at least, this Tory's position.
For example, Thatcher was a very good leader of her party from an electoral POV, more potent than any of the alternatives until the early 90s. Therefore she became (and remained) leader until she became a liability. That is equality.
Saying that such and such should be leader or deputy because he/she is male/female and there has to be representation of both genders is, like the suggestion that there has to be 11 women on a board of 22, because that is equality of numbers, pretty silly.
I personally don't agree with quotas. Gender equality doesn't have to discriminate, but I think it tries to acknowledge that we live in a world where gender does matter, and we have a long way to go before it doesn't.
I've had debates with PBers who have told me they are anti-feminist. Everytime feminism is talked about on this site, it's always in a negative way. Would you call yourself a feminist?
Of course not. I can't off hand think of any 'ist' that I would call myself. I don't do naive views of the world.
However, it wasn't really that bit of what you said that I was referring to. It's your spectacular ignorance of Conservatives which is so striking.
That bit is pretty much intrinsic to what I was saying - which, in other words was that the Conservative party in general isn't feminist bar Thersea May. I don't see exactly what's wrong with that. Cameron isn't a feminist, and Thatcher sure as hell wasn't.
How female leaders has the Tory party elected, and how many female leaders has say the Labour Party elected?
The point is that they don't (generally) identify as feminists. You can't be feminists if you don't even agree with the ideology.
I am no Tory so cannot speak for them, but generally Tories are not feminists (at least in the sense that you use the word) because they resist the idea of seeing people as part of a homogenous group. They resist class, race or religion as a division for the same reasons. The fundamental Tory world view is to see people as individuals with some family and kinship ties. Identity politics whether gender or race based is anathema. The desire to see every issue via a prism of gender politics is fundamentally a collectivist left wing one.
If you associate as a feminist and it makes you feel good, what is the opposite that one could associate as to make themselves feel good?
I don't really want to tell people what they should associate with to make themselves feel good. I know that many have started calling themselves 'egalitarians', but in my conversations with them, I've often found it's from a perspective that is quite critical of feminism. I think most today would say they agree with the notion of gender equality, and that women are certainly not 'inferior' to men. The more interesting debate is what gender equality actually looks like, and that is where views start to diverge.
I've had debates with PBers who have told me they are anti-feminist. Everytime feminism is talked about on this site, it's always in a negative way. Would you call yourself a feminist?
Of course not. I can't off hand think of any 'ist' that I would call myself. I don't do naive views of the world.
However, it wasn't really that bit of what you said that I was referring to. It's your spectacular ignorance of Conservatives which is so striking.
That bit is pretty much intrinsic to what I was saying - which, in other words was that the Conservative party in general isn't feminist bar Thersea May. I don't see exactly what's wrong with that. Cameron isn't a feminist, and Thatcher sure as hell wasn't.
I agree about Cameron. I came to that conclusion after his gay marriage speech at conference all those years ago.
Still, he's way more of a feminist than thatcher ever was.
I've always sensed it. Still, you are right that he is far more socially liberal than Thatcher.
I think the Tory position that you suggest exists is that all people are different, and that gender doesn't (or perhaps shouldn't) matter. Gender often homogenises unnecessarily, and the pursuit of gender equality often actively discriminates. That is, at least, this Tory's position.
For example, Thatcher was a very good leader of her party from an electoral POV, more potent than any of the alternatives until the early 90s. Therefore she became (and remained) leader until she became a liability. That is equality.
Saying that such and such should be leader or deputy because he/she is male/female and there has to be representation of both genders is, like the suggestion that there has to be 11 women on a board of 22, because that is equality of numbers, pretty silly.
I personally don't agree with quotas. Gender equality doesn't have to discriminate, but I think it tries to acknowledge that we live in a world where gender does matter, and we have a long way to go before it doesn't.
The starting point of ending gender mattering is to stop making it matter. If by feminist you mean interested only, solely or primarily in promoting women at the expense of men then that is sexism and is frankly no better than misogyny. If you mean equality of opportunity then great I'm all for it.
Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
SeanT voted Lib Dem in 2010
Did he vote LD because he believed in their polices, or for tactical purposes?
Both I believe.
What did he agree with. As I added on to my last post, the LDs presented themselves as socially liberal, and agreeing with a kind of gender equality (feminism, basically) that I doubt 95% of PB signs up to. The LDs are also notably pro-EU, as well.
Both and re your point about the EU
Also SeanT believes in ever closer union in the EU, to combat the rise of China.
Again, on the China thing, hasn't he said he wants us to get out of EU, and that the EU's doomed etc?
On the 'both' point, so SeanT is a socially liberal feminist? Really?
SeanT is very socially liberal, you should see his policy on drugs
I recall him complaining at the time that the editors forced him to water the piece down by the addition of the final wishy-washy paragraph. His intent was rather more full-blooded.
(I might be misremembering, but I think he had a longer version of the piece at another magazine somewhere. The Week maybe?)
I believe so.
SeanT also has some very liberal views on the criminal justice system (from his own experiences)
I've had debates with PBers who have told me they are anti-feminist. Everytime feminism is talked about on this site, it's always in a negative way. Would you call yourself a feminist?
Of course not. I can't off hand think of any 'ist' that I would call myself. I don't do naive views of the world.
However, it wasn't really that bit of what you said that I was referring to. It's your spectacular ignorance of Conservatives which is so striking.
That bit is pretty much intrinsic to what I was saying - which, in other words was that the Conservative party in general isn't feminist bar Thersea May. I don't see exactly what's wrong with that. Cameron isn't a feminist, and Thatcher sure as hell wasn't.
How female leaders has the Tory party elected, and how many female leaders has say the Labour Party elected?
The point is that they don't (generally) identify as feminists. You can't be feminists if you don't even agree with the ideology.
I am no Tory so cannot speak for them, but generally Tories are not feminists (at least in the sense that you use the word) because they resist the idea of seeing people as part of a homogenous group. They resist class, race or religion as a division for the same reasons. The fundamental Tory world view is to see people as individuals with some family and kinship ties. Identity politics whether gender or race based is anathema. The desire to see every issue via a prism of gender politics is fundamentally a collectivist left wing one.
Some how, I don't think SeanT (for example) is 'centrist' by any definition....
SeanT voted Lib Dem in 2010
Did he vote LD because he believed in their polices, or for tactical purposes?
Both I believe.
What did he agree with. As I added on to my last post, the LDs presented themselves as socially liberal, and agreeing with a kind of gender equality (feminism, basically) that I doubt 95% of PB signs up to. The LDs are also notably pro-EU, as well.
Both and re your point about the EU
Also SeanT believes in ever closer union in the EU, to combat the rise of China.
Again, on the China thing, hasn't he said he wants us to get out of EU, and that the EU's doomed etc?
On the 'both' point, so SeanT is a socially liberal feminist? Really?
SeanT is very socially liberal, you should see his policy on drugs
That's a socially liberal position, but it doesn't mean he's socially liberal as a whole. I have certain right-wing positions (e.g. I believe in the nuclear family), but I'm not right wing as a whole.
@MyBurningEars Sex-positive feminism isn't centred on men viewing women (especially women under the age of 30) in a sexualised way though. It's about women's right to their own sexual expression.
I fully support a woman's right to sexual expression ... and offer my internet browsing history as evidence of my research into the matter.
I've had debates with PBers who have told me they are anti-feminist. Everytime feminism is talked about on this site, it's always in a negative way. Would you call yourself a feminist?
Of course not. I can't off hand think of any 'ist' that I would call myself. I don't do naive views of the world.
However, it wasn't really that bit of what you said that I was referring to. It's your spectacular ignorance of Conservatives which is so striking.
That bit is pretty much intrinsic to what I was saying - which, in other words was that the Conservative party in general isn't feminist bar Thersea May. I don't see exactly what's wrong with that. Cameron isn't a feminist, and Thatcher sure as hell wasn't.
How female leaders has the Tory party elected, and how many female leaders has say the Labour Party elected?
The point is that they don't (generally) identify as feminists. You can't be feminists if you don't even agree with the ideology.
I am no Tory so cannot speak for them, but generally Tories are not feminists (at least in the sense that you use the word) because they resist the idea of seeing people as part of a homogenous group. They resist class, race or religion as a division for the same reasons. The fundamental Tory world view is to see people as individuals with some family and kinship ties. Identity politics whether gender or race based is anathema. The desire to see every issue via a prism of gender politics is fundamentally a collectivist left wing one.
I've had debates with PBers who have told me they are anti-feminist. Everytime feminism is talked about on this site, it's always in a negative way. Would you call yourself a feminist?
Of course not. I can't off hand think of any 'ist' that I would call myself. I don't do naive views of the world.
However, it wasn't really that bit of what you said that I was referring to. It's your spectacular ignorance of Conservatives which is so striking.
That bit is pretty much intrinsic to what I was saying - which, in other words was that the Conservative party in general isn't feminist bar Thersea May. I don't see exactly what's wrong with that. Cameron isn't a feminist, and Thatcher sure as hell wasn't.
How female leaders has the Tory party elected, and how many female leaders has say the Labour Party elected?
The point is that they don't (generally) identify as feminists. You can't be feminists if you don't even agree with the ideology.
I am no Tory so cannot speak for them, but generally Tories are not feminists (at least in the sense that you use the word) because they resist the idea of seeing people as part of a homogenous group. They resist class, race or religion as a division for the same reasons. The fundamental Tory world view is to see people as individuals with some family and kinship ties. Identity politics whether gender or race based is anathema. The desire to see every issue via a prism of gender politics is fundamentally a collectivist left wing one.
I think there is a middle ground between those positions though. While I can understand the desire to see people as individuals, are are certain issues (racism, sexism etc.) which means you do have to look at people as a collective group. As someone on the Left, I'm personally not into seeing every issue from a prism of gender politics, but simply that there are still issues of sexism, racism, and so within our society (and the world) today and we need to tackle them.
I've had debates with PBers who have told me they are anti-feminist. Everytime feminism is talked about on this site, it's always in a negative way. Would you call yourself a feminist?
Of course not. I can't off hand think of any 'ist' that I would call myself. I don't do naive views of the world.
However, it wasn't really that bit of what you said that I was referring to. It's your spectacular ignorance of Conservatives which is so striking.
That bit is pretty much intrinsic to what I was saying - which, in other words was that the Conservative party in general isn't feminist bar Thersea May. I don't see exactly what's wrong with that. Cameron isn't a feminist, and Thatcher sure as hell wasn't.
How female leaders has the Tory party elected, and how many female leaders has say the Labour Party elected?
The point is that they don't (generally) identify as feminists. You can't be feminists if you don't even agree with the ideology.
I am no Tory so cannot speak for them, but generally Tories are not feminists (at least in the sense that you use the word) because they resist the idea of seeing people as part of a homogenous group. They resist class, race or religion as a division for the same reasons. The fundamental Tory world view is to see people as individuals with some family and kinship ties. Identity politics whether gender or race based is anathema. The desire to see every issue via a prism of gender politics is fundamentally a collectivist left wing one.
This
Darn'it - if not Charles, David H or Richard N, there is always someone to put my sentiments better than I can myself. Bravo Dr. Fox.
I've had debates with PBers who have told me they are anti-feminist. Everytime feminism is talked about on this site, it's always in a negative way. Would you call yourself a feminist?
Of course not. I can't off hand think of any 'ist' that I would call myself. I don't do naive views of the world.
However, it wasn't really that bit of what you said that I was referring to. It's your spectacular ignorance of Conservatives which is so striking.
That bit is pretty much intrinsic to what I was saying - which, in other words was that the Conservative party in general isn't feminist bar Thersea May. I don't see exactly what's wrong with that. Cameron isn't a feminist, and Thatcher sure as hell wasn't.
How female leaders has the Tory party elected, and how many female leaders has say the Labour Party elected?
The point is that they don't (generally) identify as feminists. You can't be feminists if you don't even agree with the ideology.
I am no Tory so cannot speak for them, but generally Tories are not feminists (at least in the sense that you use the word) because they resist the idea of seeing people as part of a homogenous group. They resist class, race or religion as a division for the same reasons. The fundamental Tory world view is to see people as individuals with some family and kinship ties. Identity politics whether gender or race based is anathema. The desire to see every issue via a prism of gender politics is fundamentally a collectivist left wing one.
I think there is a middle ground between those positions though. While I can understand the desire to see people as individuals, are are certain issues (racism, sexism etc.) which means you do have to look at people as a collective group. As someone on the Left, I'm personally not into seeing every issue from a prism of gender politics, but simply that there are still issues of sexism, racism, and so within our society (and the world) today and we need to tackle them.
Does it not worry you that legislation meant to removes -isms as an issue often seems to entrench them, in one form or another, within the justice system?
And maybe he has views on voting age? Or driving? Or joining the army?
Or are you implying something unpleasant? You are an unpleasant person so naturally I assume the latter. Go on, say clearly what you're implying and we'll all laugh as his lawyers nail you to a wall.
The starting point of ending gender mattering is to stop making it matter. If by feminist you mean interested only, solely or primarily in promoting women at the expense of men then that is sexism and is frankly no better than misogyny. If you mean equality of opportunity then great I'm all for it.
I don't define promoting women at the expense of men as feminism. I think that comment kind of echoes what @EPG was saying earlier.
I also don't agree that the starting point of 'ending gender mattering is to stop making it matter'. On certain issues such as say - FGM - gender will matter, because it is primarily women who are affected.
I've had debates with PBers who have told me they are anti-feminist. Everytime feminism is talked about on this site, it's always in a negative way. Would you call yourself a feminist?
Of course not. I can't off hand think of any 'ist' that I would call myself. I don't do naive views of the world.
However, it wasn't really that bit of what you said that I was referring to. It's your spectacular ignorance of Conservatives which is so striking.
That bit is pretty much intrinsic to what I was saying - which, in other words was that the Conservative party in general isn't feminist bar Thersea May. I don't see exactly what's wrong with that. Cameron isn't a feminist, and Thatcher sure as hell wasn't.
How female leaders has the Tory party elected, and how many female leaders has say the Labour Party elected?
The point is that they don't (generally) identify as feminists. You can't be feminists if you don't even agree with the ideology.
I am no Tory so cannot speak for them, but generally Tories are not feminists (at least in the sense that you use the word) because they resist the idea of seeing people as part of a homogenous group. They resist class, race or religion as a division for the same reasons. The fundamental Tory world view is to see people as individuals with some family and kinship ties. Identity politics whether gender or race based is anathema. The desire to see every issue via a prism of gender politics is fundamentally a collectivist left wing one.
I think there is a middle ground between those positions though. While I can understand the desire to see people as individuals, are are certain issues (racism, sexism etc.) which means you do have to look at people as a collective group. As someone on the Left, I'm personally not into seeing every issue from a prism of gender politics, but simply that there are still issues of sexism, racism, and so within our society (and the world) today and we need to tackle them.
We tackle sexism by not being sexist. Driving around in a pink bus talking down about women's issues is sexist. We tackle racism by not being racist. Launching a BME manifesto and banging on about BME issues is racist.
Would you drive in a blue van to talk about men's issues and launch a white manifesto to bang on about white issues? If no, don't do the opposite. Simples.
Oh goody, Shadsy's evens on a shad cab resignation by the end of Monday looking good...
If Corbyn whips his party without agreement with his shadow cabinet then it shows he cares little (well not in the least) for the regular tenets of cabinet government and democracy. It would show he is happy to use this issue (a very tall totem for his cultist followers) as a lever in his policy of taking over the party on behalf of these entryist.
I don't think there's a democracy problem with it, his members support him. The practical problem is that he gets the party in the habit of ignoring the whip.
@Mortimer I'm not aware of that happening. Either way, I'm not someone who believes in the state as main source of promoting gender and racial equality. I feel a lot of it is about changing attitudes, and that is a far harder thing to achieve.
Is there such a thing as a "sex-negative" feminist?
People tend to see anti-pornography feminists as sex-negative. Though what I don't like is that people often associate sex-positive feminism with only pornography. Sex does not start and end with pornography, and women can sexually express themselves outside of that arena. Furthermore, just as being sex positive is about women's right to say 'yes' to whatever they want, it's also about their right to say no, too.
The starting point of ending gender mattering is to stop making it matter. If by feminist you mean interested only, solely or primarily in promoting women at the expense of men then that is sexism and is frankly no better than misogyny. If you mean equality of opportunity then great I'm all for it.
I don't define promoting women at the expense of men as feminism. I think that comment kind of echoes what @EPG was saying earlier.
I also don't agree that the starting point of 'ending gender mattering is to stop making it matter'. On certain issues such as say - FGM - gender will matter, because it is primarily women who are affected.
On certain issues like testicular cancer it will be men who are primarily affected. But no gender is not needed to be relevant there. FGM is a crime and needs to be dealt with as a criminal issue not a gender issue. Enforce the law equally. Testicular cancer should not be a men's issue buy a healthcare issue.
On some subsets of healthcare or crime men or women may be more or less affected. But the solution is to have good healthcare and good law enforcement not gender identity politics.
I've had debates with PBers who have told me they are anti-feminist. Everytime feminism is talked about on this site, it's always in a negative way. Would you call yourself a feminist?
Of course not. I can't off hand think of any 'ist' that I would call myself. I don't do naive views of the world.
However, it wasn't really that bit of what you said that I was referring to. It's your spectacular ignorance of Conservatives which is so striking.
That bit is pretty much intrinsic to what I was saying - which, in other words was that the Conservative party in general isn't feminist bar Thersea May. I don't see exactly what's wrong with that. Cameron isn't a feminist, and Thatcher sure as hell wasn't.
How female leaders has the Tory party elected, and how many female leaders has say the Labour Party elected?
The point is that they don't (generally) identify as feminists. You can't be feminists if you don't even agree with the ideology.
I am no Tory so cannot speak for them, but generally Tories are not feminists (at least in the sense that you use the word) because they resist the idea of seeing people as part of a homogenous group. They resist class, race or religion as a division for the same reasons. The fundamental Tory world view is to see people as individuals with some family and kinship ties. Identity politics whether gender or race based is anathema. The desire to see every issue via a prism of gender politics is fundamentally a collectivist left wing one.
I think there is a middle ground between those positions though. While I can understand the desire to see people as individuals, are are certain issues (racism, sexism etc.) which means you do have to look at people as a collective group. As someone on the Left, I'm personally not into seeing every issue from a prism of gender politics, but simply that there are still issues of sexism, racism, and so within our society (and the world) today and we need to tackle them.
We tackle sexism by not being sexist. Driving around in a pink bus talking down about women's issues is sexist. We tackle racism by not being racist. Launching a BME manifesto and banging on about BME issues is racist.
Would you drive in a blue van to talk about men's issues and launch a white manifesto to bang on about white issues? If no, don't do the opposite. Simples.
I've always sensed it. Still, you are right that he is far more socially liberal than Thatcher.
Actually, he probably isn't more socially liberal than Thatcher was, relative to her time.
You are judging the 1980s by the standards of 2015. Views have changed, and language has changed even more.
Let alone the 1960s when Thatcher was one of the handful of Tories who voted for the Wolfenden reforms, decriminalising homosexuality - or approved the biggest anti-AIDS campaign which saved the lives of tens of thousands, when you compare deaths with France, much slower off the mark.
We tackle sexism by not being sexist. Driving around in a pink bus talking down about women's issues is sexist. We tackle racism by not being racist. Launching a BME manifesto and banging on about BME issues is racist.
Would you drive in a blue van to talk about men's issues and launch a white manifesto to bang on about white issues? If no, don't do the opposite. Simples.
I'm not here to defend the Labour party on those issues, so....
I personally don't always agree with 'Labour feminism'. I already said I wasn't a fan of quotas.
And if only it were as simple as 'not being racist' and 'not being sexist' then these issues would have been sorted a long time ago. As it is, it's proven to be a lot more complicated than that. For a start what people define as sexist and racist can differ, aside from blatantly obvious cases. There was a YG poll some months ago, showing how women and men viewed what was 'sexist' quite differently, on some issues. Certainly, many would not see cultural appropriation, as racist - when I know many people who do see it as racist.
The starting point of ending gender mattering is to stop making it matter. If by feminist you mean interested only, solely or primarily in promoting women at the expense of men then that is sexism and is frankly no better than misogyny. If you mean equality of opportunity then great I'm all for it.
I don't define promoting women at the expense of men as feminism. I think that comment kind of echoes what @EPG was saying earlier.
I also don't agree that the starting point of 'ending gender mattering is to stop making it matter'. On certain issues such as say - FGM - gender will matter, because it is primarily women who are affected.
On certain issues like testicular cancer it will be men who are primarily affected. But no gender is not needed to be relevant there. FGM is a crime and needs to be dealt with as a criminal issue not a gender issue. Enforce the law equally. Testicular cancer should not be a men's issue buy a healthcare issue.
On some subsets of healthcare or crime men or women may be more or less affected. But the solution is to have good healthcare and good law enforcement not gender identity politics.
I don't think you're comparing like with like. There is a sexist politics behind why FGM occurs, whereas there isn't in regard to testicular cancer.
I'm also not arguing the law should be enforced unequally.
This is what I mean by Tories viewing equality in a way feminists don't.
We tackle sexism by not being sexist. Driving around in a pink bus talking down about women's issues is sexist. We tackle racism by not being racist. Launching a BME manifesto and banging on about BME issues is racist.
Would you drive in a blue van to talk about men's issues and launch a white manifesto to bang on about white issues? If no, don't do the opposite. Simples.
I'm not here to defend the Labour party on those issues, so....
I personally don't always agree with 'Labour feminism'. I already said I wasn't a fan of quotas.
And if only it were as simple as 'not being racist' and 'not being sexist' then these issues would have been sorted a long time ago. As it is, it's proven to be a lot more complicated than that. For a start what people define as sexist and racist can differ, aside from blatantly obvious cases. There was a YG poll some months ago, showing how women and men viewed what was 'sexist' quite differently, on some issues. Certainly, many would not see cultural appropriation, as racist - when I know many people who do see it as racist.
Really? Wow. That is interesting. Does that include language - given that is part of culture?
The starting point of ending gender mattering is to stop making it matter. If by feminist you mean interested only, solely or primarily in promoting women at the expense of men then that is sexism and is frankly no better than misogyny. If you mean equality of opportunity then great I'm all for it.
I don't define promoting women at the expense of men as feminism. I think that comment kind of echoes what @EPG was saying earlier.
I also don't agree that the starting point of 'ending gender mattering is to stop making it matter'. On certain issues such as say - FGM - gender will matter, because it is primarily women who are affected.
On certain issues like testicular cancer it will be men who are primarily affected. But no gender is not needed to be relevant there. FGM is a crime and needs to be dealt with as a criminal issue not a gender issue. Enforce the law equally. Testicular cancer should not be a men's issue buy a healthcare issue.
On some subsets of healthcare or crime men or women may be more or less affected. But the solution is to have good healthcare and good law enforcement not gender identity politics.
I don't think you're comparing like with like. There is a sexist politics behind why FGM occurs, whereas there isn't in regard to testicular cancer.
I'm also not arguing the law should be enforced unequally.
This is what I mean by Tories viewing equality in a way feminists don't.
Can we have a brief interlude in this discussion whilst you put the kettle on, bring us out some sandwiches? Cheers, petal.
We tackle sexism by not being sexist. Driving around in a pink bus talking down about women's issues is sexist. We tackle racism by not being racist. Launching a BME manifesto and banging on about BME issues is racist.
Would you drive in a blue van to talk about men's issues and launch a white manifesto to bang on about white issues? If no, don't do the opposite. Simples.
I'm not here to defend the Labour party on those issues, so....
I personally don't always agree with 'Labour feminism'. I already said I wasn't a fan of quotas.
And if only it were as simple as 'not being racist' and 'not being sexist' then these issues would have been sorted a long time ago. As it is, it's proven to be a lot more complicated than that. For a start what people define as sexist and racist can differ, aside from blatantly obvious cases. There was a YG poll some months ago, showing how women and men viewed what was 'sexist' quite differently, on some issues. Certainly, many would not see cultural appropriation, as racist - when I know many people who do see it as racist.
Really? Wow. That is interesting. Does that include language - given that is part of culture?
I feel "oppressed" by having to speak English - only kidding
We tackle sexism by not being sexist. Driving around in a pink bus talking down about women's issues is sexist. We tackle racism by not being racist. Launching a BME manifesto and banging on about BME issues is racist.
Would you drive in a blue van to talk about men's issues and launch a white manifesto to bang on about white issues? If no, don't do the opposite. Simples.
I'm not here to defend the Labour party on those issues, so....
I personally don't always agree with 'Labour feminism'. I already said I wasn't a fan of quotas.
And if only it were as simple as 'not being racist' and 'not being sexist' then these issues would have been sorted a long time ago. As it is, it's proven to be a lot more complicated than that. For a start what people define as sexist and racist can differ, aside from blatantly obvious cases. There was a YG poll some months ago, showing how women and men viewed what was 'sexist' quite differently, on some issues. Certainly, many would not see cultural appropriation, as racist - when I know many people who do see it as racist.
Really? Wow. That is interesting. Does that include language - given that is part of culture?
I think it may do, although I'm not sure. A lot of it a centered on more visual stuff (in my experience) such as appropriating Black American culture, or Red Indian culture etc.
We tackle sexism by not being sexist. Driving around in a pink bus talking down about women's issues is sexist. We tackle racism by not being racist. Launching a BME manifesto and banging on about BME issues is racist.
Would you drive in a blue van to talk about men's issues and launch a white manifesto to bang on about white issues? If no, don't do the opposite. Simples.
I'm not here to defend the Labour party on those issues, so....
I personally don't always agree with 'Labour feminism'. I already said I wasn't a fan of quotas.
And if only it were as simple as 'not being racist' and 'not being sexist' then these issues would have been sorted a long time ago. As it is, it's proven to be a lot more complicated than that. For a start what people define as sexist and racist can differ, aside from blatantly obvious cases. There was a YG poll some months ago, showing how women and men viewed what was 'sexist' quite differently, on some issues. Certainly, many would not see cultural appropriation, as racist - when I know many people who do see it as racist.
Really? Wow. That is interesting. Does that include language - given that is part of culture?
I feel "oppressed" by having to speak English - only kidding
I was actually thinking the opposite; take it to the logical conclusion, is encouraging immigrants to speak English considered racist by some natives of Anglo-phone countries?
The starting point of ending gender mattering is to stop making it matter. If by feminist you mean interested only, solely or primarily in promoting women at the expense of men then that is sexism and is frankly no better than misogyny. If you mean equality of opportunity then great I'm all for it.
I don't define promoting women at the expense of men as feminism. I think that comment kind of echoes what @EPG was saying earlier.
I also don't agree that the starting point of 'ending gender mattering is to stop making it matter'. On certain issues such as say - FGM - gender will matter, because it is primarily women who are affected.
On certain issues like testicular cancer it will be men who are primarily affected. But no gender is not needed to be relevant there. FGM is a crime and needs to be dealt with as a criminal issue not a gender issue. Enforce the law equally. Testicular cancer should not be a men's issue buy a healthcare issue.
On some subsets of healthcare or crime men or women may be more or less affected. But the solution is to have good healthcare and good law enforcement not gender identity politics.
I don't think you're comparing like with like. There is a sexist politics behind why FGM occurs, whereas there isn't in regard to testicular cancer.
I'm also not arguing the law should be enforced unequally.
This is what I mean by Tories viewing equality in a way feminists don't.
No there is a criminal reason behind why FGM occurs. If people were obeying the law it wouldn't occur. It is a crime not a gender issue.
Just as rape is frequently regarded as a gender issue or a women's issue by sexists on the left despite a large proportion of victims being male and all occurrences crimes.
Are you lot incapable of responding to a comment. Corbyn is the real Labour Party and the rest of them are just hypercritics.
HypOcrites, actually
A few days back I said the Labour Party was founded by Socialists and on September 12th, the Socialists got their party back. But I added that it doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing!
The starting point of ending gender mattering is to stop making it matter. If by feminist you mean interested only, solely or primarily in promoting women at the expense of men then that is sexism and is frankly no better than misogyny. If you mean equality of opportunity then great I'm all for it.
I don't define promoting women at the expense of men as feminism. I think that comment kind of echoes what @EPG was saying earlier.
I also don't agree that the starting point of 'ending gender mattering is to stop making it matter'. On certain issues such as say - FGM - gender will matter, because it is primarily women who are affected.
On certain issues like testicular cancer it will be men who are primarily affected. But no gender is not needed to be relevant there. FGM is a crime and needs to be dealt with as a criminal issue not a gender issue. Enforce the law equally. Testicular cancer should not be a men's issue buy a healthcare issue.
On some subsets of healthcare or crime men or women may be more or less affected. But the solution is to have good healthcare and good law enforcement not gender identity politics.
I don't think you're comparing like with like. There is a sexist politics behind why FGM occurs,
I told you a few months back that most - not all, but most - BME cultures are anti-feminist.
The starting point of ending gender mattering is to stop making it matter. If by feminist you mean interested only, solely or primarily in promoting women at the expense of men then that is sexism and is frankly no better than misogyny. If you mean equality of opportunity then great I'm all for it.
I don't define promoting women at the expense of men as feminism. I think that comment kind of echoes what @EPG was saying earlier.
I also don't agree that the starting point of 'ending gender mattering is to stop making it matter'. On certain issues such as say - FGM - gender will matter, because it is primarily women who are affected.
On certain issues like testicular cancer it will be men who are primarily affected. But no gender is not needed to be relevant there. FGM is a crime and needs to be dealt with as a criminal issue not a gender issue. Enforce the law equally. Testicular cancer should not be a men's issue buy a healthcare issue.
On some subsets of healthcare or crime men or women may be more or less affected. But the solution is to have good healthcare and good law enforcement not gender identity politics.
I don't think you're comparing like with like. There is a sexist politics behind why FGM occurs, whereas there isn't in regard to testicular cancer.
I'm also not arguing the law should be enforced unequally.
This is what I mean by Tories viewing equality in a way feminists don't.
No there is a criminal reason behind why FGM occurs. If people were obeying the law it wouldn't occur. It is a crime not a gender issue.
Just as rape is frequently regarded as a gender issue or a women's issue by sexists on the left despite a large proportion of victims being male and all occurrences crimes.
No, it's not as simple as that. It's like saying the murder of Steven Lawrence took place because of 'criminal' reasons as opposed to racism being a huge factor. If people in the countries that FGM occurs in, didn't view women as inferior it wouldn't occur. Issues tend to be complex, and aren't black and white.
Rape is a crime of power - it's seen as a gendered issue because there is a history of men subjugating women in the world, and rape is one method of subjugation.
The starting point of ending gender mattering is to stop making it matter. If by feminist you mean interested only, solely or primarily in promoting women at the expense of men then that is sexism and is frankly no better than misogyny. If you mean equality of opportunity then great I'm all for it.
I don't define promoting women at the expense of men as feminism. I think that comment kind of echoes what @EPG was saying earlier.
I also don't agree that the starting point of 'ending gender mattering is to stop making it matter'. On certain issues such as say - FGM - gender will matter, because it is primarily women who are affected.
On certain issues like testicular cancer it will be men who are primarily affected. But no gender is not needed to be relevant there. FGM is a crime and needs to be dealt with as a criminal issue not a gender issue. Enforce the law equally. Testicular cancer should not be a men's issue buy a healthcare issue.
On some subsets of healthcare or crime men or women may be more or less affected. But the solution is to have good healthcare and good law enforcement not gender identity politics.
I don't think you're comparing like with like. There is a sexist politics behind why FGM occurs,
I told you a few months back that most - not all, but most - BME cultures are anti-feminist.
The starting point of ending gender mattering is to stop making it matter. If by feminist you mean interested only, solely or primarily in promoting women at the expense of men then that is sexism and is frankly no better than misogyny. If you mean equality of opportunity then great I'm all for it.
I don't define promoting women at the expense of men as feminism. I think that comment kind of echoes what @EPG was saying earlier.
I also don't agree that the starting point of 'ending gender mattering is to stop making it matter'. On certain issues such as say - FGM - gender will matter, because it is primarily women who are affected.
On certain issues like testicular cancer it will be men who are primarily affected. But no gender is not needed to be relevant there. FGM is a crime and needs to be dealt with as a criminal issue not a gender issue. Enforce the law equally. Testicular cancer should not be a men's issue buy a healthcare issue.
On some subsets of healthcare or crime men or women may be more or less affected. But the solution is to have good healthcare and good law enforcement not gender identity politics.
I don't think you're comparing like with like. There is a sexist politics behind why FGM occurs, whereas there isn't in regard to testicular cancer.
I'm also not arguing the law should be enforced unequally.
This is what I mean by Tories viewing equality in a way feminists don't.
No there is a criminal reason behind why FGM occurs. If people were obeying the law it wouldn't occur. It is a crime not a gender issue.
Just as rape is frequently regarded as a gender issue or a women's issue by sexists on the left despite a large proportion of victims being male and all occurrences crimes.
No, it's not as simple as that. It's like saying the murder of Steven Lawrence took place because of 'criminal' reasons as opposed to racism being a huge factor. If people in the countries that FGM occurs in, didn't view women as inferior it wouldn't occur. Issues tend to be complex, and aren't black and white.
Rape is a crime of power - it's seen as a gendered issue because there is a history of men subjugating women in the world, and rape is one method of subjugation.
And here in crystal clear details is why you are completely wrong.
Rape is not about the subjugation of men over women.
Rape is a crime of one INDIVIDUAL exerting power over another INDIVIDUAL. The fact that a large minority of victims are male changes your identity politics from naive to outright harmful.
Well we seem to be getting a response. The point is that Corbyn is the Labour Party and the rest are wolves in sheeps clothing. Politics should be honest and at last Corbyn has made it so !
Well we seem to be getting a response. The point is that Corbyn is the Labour Party and the rest are wolves in sheeps clothing. Politics should be honest and at last Corbyn has made it so !
Rubbish, Corbyn over Syria has been much less than honest with his mp's.
"the result of an internal assessment made by the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), "
so, from exactly the same place as the 45 minutes, in fact
How do they make these numbers up ? Someone says 700, another says add a zero, then the meeting resolves to add yet another zero.
So these 70000 have been fighting ISIL for more than a year with air support from US, France, Turkey , Jordan etc. ?
How many inches have they won back ?
The Kurds have been being making very good progress. They have nearly cut off ISIS from the Turkish border now. I believe that is really one of the key objectives of increased airstrike capabilities, is to provide the support for the Kurds to push and seal off ISIS from Turkey (and with that the easy route for new recruits and supplies).
most of them moderate enough to receive backing from the CIA
"Many of the groups who fall within both these categories are armed factions the Islamist-averse United States’ CIA has already ‘vetted’ and assessed as ‘moderate’ enough to receive lethal assistance."
most of them moderate enough to receive backing from the CIA
"Many of the groups who fall within both these categories are armed factions the Islamist-averse United States’ CIA has already ‘vetted’ and assessed as ‘moderate’ enough to receive lethal assistance."
which is very reassuring
Hmm...CIA doesn't exactly have a great record when it comes this. I watched a report on VICE where they were on the front line with the Free Syrian Army in the South and they weren't exactly types I fancy having come over for dinner.
Comments
But I think everyone would agree that SeanT is very much in favour of female sexuality.
I often find his writings here simultaneously repugnant, entertaining and admirable
Also, I wasn't trying to lecture to you, I'm sorry if it came off that way.
However, it wasn't really that bit of what you said that I was referring to. It's your spectacular ignorance of Conservatives which is so striking.
It would show he is happy to use this issue (a very tall totem for his cultist followers) as a lever in his policy of taking over the party on behalf of these entryist.
https://twitter.com/AJENews/status/671068476539338752
...and with that good night all.
You really ought to meet a few Conservative women politicians.
As for who is a 'feminist', it all depends what you mean. No doubt you'll define it to suit your theory. Maggie Thatcher may or may not have been a feminist - she didn't like the word, as I recall - but she was certainly the leading example of breaking the ''glass ceiling" of any woman in a major Western country in the twentieth century.
Still, he's way more of a feminist than thatcher ever was.
For example, Thatcher was a very good leader of her party from an electoral POV, more potent than any of the alternatives until the early 90s. Therefore she became (and remained) leader until she became a liability. That is equality.
Saying that such and such should be leader or deputy because he/she is male/female and there has to be representation of both genders is, like the suggestion that there has to be 11 women on a board of 22, because that is equality of numbers, pretty silly.
As to being a loyalist - no, actually not at all. I can understand why people are confused about this, because I seem to support Cameron a lot. That's because he agrees with me on most issues (I got there first!), not because of party loyalty.
- M. H. Thatcher, quoted by Paul Johnson in Failure of the Feminists, The Spectator, 12 March, 2011.
If you associate as a feminist and it makes you feel good, what is the opposite that one could associate as to make themselves feel good?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34952735
This might be cruel, but when I saw it I reckoned they should have titled it "Who was Grant Shapps?"
Not convinced that he'll be back.
Glad I decided to bin that thread.
It is why I no longer use moleskine notebooks. Beer-mats are much easier to dispose of permanently.
You are judging the 1980s by the standards of 2015. Views have changed, and language has changed even more.
Or are you implying something unpleasant? You are an unpleasant person so naturally I assume the latter. Go on, say clearly what you're implying and we'll all laugh as his lawyers nail you to a wall.
I also don't agree that the starting point of 'ending gender mattering is to stop making it matter'. On certain issues such as say - FGM - gender will matter, because it is primarily women who are affected.
We tackle racism by not being racist. Launching a BME manifesto and banging on about BME issues is racist.
Would you drive in a blue van to talk about men's issues and launch a white manifesto to bang on about white issues? If no, don't do the opposite. Simples.
On some subsets of healthcare or crime men or women may be more or less affected. But the solution is to have good healthcare and good law enforcement not gender identity politics.
I personally don't always agree with 'Labour feminism'. I already said I wasn't a fan of quotas.
And if only it were as simple as 'not being racist' and 'not being sexist' then these issues would have been sorted a long time ago. As it is, it's proven to be a lot more complicated than that. For a start what people define as sexist and racist can differ, aside from blatantly obvious cases. There was a YG poll some months ago, showing how women and men viewed what was 'sexist' quite differently, on some issues. Certainly, many would not see cultural appropriation, as racist - when I know many people who do see it as racist.
I'm also not arguing the law should be enforced unequally.
This is what I mean by Tories viewing equality in a way feminists don't.
#OperationSaveJezza
Just as rape is frequently regarded as a gender issue or a women's issue by sexists on the left despite a large proportion of victims being male and all occurrences crimes.
Far more people voted for the Lab MPs who are opposing Corbyn than the selectorate who voted for Corbyn.
A few days back I said the Labour Party was founded by Socialists and on September 12th, the Socialists got their party back. But I added that it doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing!
Why do our politicians need to embellish messages unnecessarily. There aren't 70000 beds in Istanbul's 5-star hotels,
Rape is a crime of power - it's seen as a gendered issue because there is a history of men subjugating women in the world, and rape is one method of subjugation.
I'm saying Corbyn is not representative of or able to empathise with the majority of Labour voters.
On that basis, what makes anyone think he would be electable?
On Thursday we will likely see this played out in Oldham.
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/yes-there-are-70000-moderate-opposition-fighters-in-syria-heres-what-we-know-about-them/
If there is any more than a 2k majority for Lab, I'd be very, very surprised.
Good article.
Rape is not about the subjugation of men over women.
Rape is a crime of one INDIVIDUAL exerting power over another INDIVIDUAL. The fact that a large minority of victims are male changes your identity politics from naive to outright harmful.
Who the F*ck are you ? Majority of Labour voters support Corbyn.
so, from exactly the same place as the 45 minutes, in fact
hang on, maybe i can. back in a minute
So these 70000 have been fighting ISIL for more than a year with air support from US, France, Turkey , Jordan etc. ?
How many inches have they won back ?
"I AM THE LABOUR PARTY"!
"Many of the groups who fall within both these categories are armed factions the Islamist-averse United States’ CIA has already ‘vetted’ and assessed as ‘moderate’ enough to receive lethal assistance."
which is very reassuring