From the impact of the spending cuts, hitting women twice as hard as men, to the changes to the benefits system, designed to discourage women in couples from the workplace, to Ken Clarke’s crass remarks about rape, to asking whether the Equality Act should be abolished as part of the government’s ‘red tape’ review (red tape! How dare they?), and I could go on and on with a host of other government policies, it’s clear the government doesn’t take women seriously. Labour women must fight back.
The problem is we’re out of the habit – too often it’s seemed in recent years that women thought the battle was won. For Labour’s policies since 1997 had done much to advance women’s autonomy, economic independence and status. The national minimum wage, the childcare strategy, investment in tax credits and child benefit, our strategy to tackle domestic violence, the development of SARCs and funding for rape crisis centres and refuges, our efforts against human trafficking, improvements in the state pension, increased police numbers to keep streets and communities safe, public service spending, the new deal for lone parents – these and many other policies were, whether expressly or indirectly, fundamentally good for women. And women understood that when they came to the ballot box – Labour would have lost the 2005 election without the woman’s vote.
But these significant policy gains were accompanied by an increasing reluctance on the part of women to be associated with the feminist label. Younger women felt it was irrelevant, that they didn’t need ‘special pleading’. Others were persuaded that was somehow ‘anti-men’. Many felt the work was done, the struggle had been won.
Such thinking has left an open goal for the government to dismantle what’s been gained. Listen to the Tories’ Victorian views of women’s role. Women are praised for their contribution to strong families and communities, marriage is upheld as the desired state of the majority of women. Iain Duncan Smith prefers women to stay at home to look after children rather than take paid work (unless they happen to be single mums). David Willetts accuses us of taking men’s jobs and places at university.
The truth is every woman should be able to make a choice about the lifecourse that’s right for her. There isn’t a preferred model of womanhood. But choice isn’t simply a matter of personal capacity, it requires a structural approach to addressing endemic inequality. Labour understands that, it’s what our policies sought to address.
Labour women need to be unapologetic about this, unapologetic about proclaiming equality as of right. I must say I didn’t expect to be in this position, more than 30 years after I first marched for women’s rights. But, sadly, I’m now forced to face the fact that we took progress too much for granted. Now women need to learn to shout again, to be angry, fearless and proud. I hope and expect the whole of the Labour movement will be with us in the fight.
Absolutely agree, Kate. Particularly disappointing therefore to hear Frank Field MP argue at the Progress conference on Saturday that Labour should not be a feminist party.
Great article Kate – Labour does need to be a feminist party. When I stood for the local council in May 2010 the sexism from the local party was challenging as well as a disappointment.
Spot on Kate. I am fed up of being treated like some mad radical feminist because I want to defend what we have achieved and continue to press for equality within the ranks of the Party and beyond.
We certainly should be? Men in our society still have most of the political power, and if we are not careful we will slide back 200years
“Labour would have lost the 2005 election without the woman’s vote.” Rather pointless thing to say. Any party, that before any other divisions has no support from half the population, is unlikely to do well. “Others were persuaded that was somehow ‘anti-men’.” There is a significant, even dominant, strain of modern feminism that is very much anti men, men’s roles and anything that can be defined as “male”. Given that, it is hardly surprising that it is viewed as such nor that most women, who don’t hate men, are very wary of being connected with feminism as a result. “Labour women need to be unapologetic about this, unapologetic about proclaiming equality as of right.” The problem here is that in the view of many, myself included, you have gone beyond “equality” and have drifted far into the hinterland of special pleading and rent seeking. If spending cuts are hitting women twice as hard as men then either the government is deliberately targeting women, (not only unlikely but something that would come out under a JR), or women are so disproportionately reliant on the state that a flat cut affects them more. If the latter then this is not an argument for never, ever cutting spending but for reviewing the welfare system to see what incentives have caused this problem.
I think the problem is that a lot of women like me in their 20’s haven’t really had much of an explanation of what this ‘feminism’ movement is about. Feminism is still portrayed as being anti-men and not really knowing much about it isn’t going to encourage women to challenge that misconception. The first time feminism was mentioned to me outside my home was when I started university; yet to say you’re not sure if you’re a feminist is met by much anger by those who are: “you’re a woman, how can you not be a feminist!”. If feminism means wanting equal rights and that’s it then I’m in; but what else does it entail? And how can we get a simple explanation of what it is really about out to a wider public?
well its sort of, are we here for men or for ourselves .This begins with the body,the confusion starts there ,women take’ pleasure ‘in their bodies yes but their bodies are also for birth and feeding babies .Of course a mature woman knows the answer is both but actually our society really works counter to that. To hand ones children over to a carer then is the next problem,some cannot do that and their career will suffer .Some do not do that because motherhood is their only job opportunity and some of these mothers may therefore not have much education to share with their children so society suffers as a consequence. This is a simple start,there is much more.
You forgot to mention all womens’ shortlists as one of Labour’s “acheivements” in this area.
Hi Kate, Thanks for your interesting article. I was interested to see that, almost immediately after the lady asked a question about feminism, another older lady asked a question bemoaning the fact that women will soon have to work as late into life as men. Do you agree that there is no reason whatsoever why women should be allowed to received their pension 5 years earlier than men – and that women should seek equality even when it might not benefit them?
well J. that will be because most women have three jobs,one to earn money one to have and rear children and housework good old number three.