Feminism; A Short Opinion
Posted: July 12, 2011 Filed under: Opinion | Tags: Equality, Feminism, Feminist, Meritocracy, Parliament, Politics, Women Leave a comment »Andrew Mitchell writes for Left But Not Behind.
Image: Jay Morrison
I have always been behind feminism. I do believe that women should have a fairer, more equal place in society; but I only support some ‘feminists’ claims to an extent.
Primarily, I disagree with the idea that Parliament should be 50% Male and 50% Female. There are 646 MPs, which means that, if it was half men and half women, there should be 323 Men and 323 Woman, and this transformation would be done by parties putting female candidates up in safe seats, in places such as Liverpool (an example being the fact that the Labour candidate in the Liverpool Walton constituency received an overwhelming 72% of the vote.) This would increase equality in Parliament, but would it be right? Would it be of benefit to the country?
I have spoken to many women and many feminists on this matter, and they wholly agree with my opinion- although I have not spoken to ‘hardcore’ feminists, as they scare me a little, I do not believe that women should get their seats, purely because they are women. Surely that is defeating the whole principle of feminism; that women are equal to men. This makes it apparent that they are not, because it is highly likely that women are going to be told to take these seats by men. A token female, you could say. Surely it would be of benefit to everyone, if the places were taken meritocratically; the women get the seats if they are more skilled at the profession than the man contesting that seat- If the man is better at the job, the man gets the job, if the woman is better at the job, the woman gets the job. I believe, therefore, that it is all about opportunity, and that women do not get those opportunities presented to them like men do. So, as is the case in many problems in this country, it all stems back to education. I’ll take my local area, as an example. The two main schools are single sex schools; an all boys and an all girls. The all boys school teaches Politics, and all girls school does not; preferring sociology as an option. The introduction of Politics into the curriculum as a core subject; ensuring that every pupil does the basics, could encourage more young women into politics, providing them with a platform to express their political opinion- something that could also solve the problem of political apathy. This could increase the chances of there becoming more women taking politics at A level and at University in order to become a member of parliament (a recent example is my attendance at a university open day; the politics lecturer asking of those present, who would like to become an MP, with 4 Male hands up, and 1 Female.). This could be a vital tool to increase the representation of women, and could have helped to oppose this harsh programme of cuts passed by this government which are to affect women twice as much as men.
Women have a place in politics just as much as men do, and anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken, but in the process of women being handed seats because they are women, I believe that they are gaining advantages because of their gender; one of the main reasons feminism is strong is due to the fact this has happened to men time and time again. This would, in my opinion, provide an unwarranted mockery of feminism as a principle; the main reason as to why I am against this happening. To gain equal representation, I believe that universal education and opportunities should be enforced, giving those prospective talented women members of parliament the platform of which to begin their career, and the presence of an equal starting point for each gender, to shape future parliaments as to talent and interest, rather than as to what gender they are.
As writing this, the idea of gender not even being mentioned in any context would be ideal. It shouldnt matter in any situation as to whether someone is a man or woman, as it should not influence whether they get the job they go for, whether they have the opportunity to do something or not, or as to whether they are given extra treatment. Regardless of gender, ethnicity, age or class, opportunity and education should be equal, therefore leading to more equal representation in both Parliament and big businesses.
I am all behind Feminism, but I am behind the idea of Meritocracy also. Equality goes both ways. If the woman is better than the man, then she should get the job, if the man is better than the woman, he should get the job. What is there wrong with that?
I think that this quote, from Jane Galvin Lewis, describes it excellently;
Why the Labour Party Needs a Leader With a Regional Accent.
Posted: July 11, 2011 Filed under: Opinion, Politics | Tags: Ed Miliband, James Murdoch, Labour, Leadership, Murdoch, News, News of the World, NOTW, Rebekah Brooks, Regional Accent, Rupert Murdoch, Scandal Leave a comment »Does the Labour leader have enough clout to lead the party into the next election? Or is this latest firepower just Miliband working on behalf of a party who’ve wanted Murdoch out since the dissolution of ‘New Labour’?
Image: PA.
In the last week, much has been said for the way that the media and journalists interact. Ed Miliband, the current Labour leader has gone from being rather a weak leader in the eyes of some after his handling of the national walkout of teachers the previous week, to then becoming a firey character, calling for Rebekah Brooks to “consider her position” before the News of the World story had even developed to what it is today. With this in mind however, the way that Miliband seems to be handling this scandal is something of a shock but at the same time something many of us knew was coming. Labour seem particularly keen to disassociate themselves from the Murdoch empire, like arguably most of Westminster do as well, but what happens should Miliband and co. topple Murdoch’s empire or even damage it to the point where News International potentially have no input in who’s elected to be the leader of our country? Surely then more consideration would have to be put into winning over the people elsewhere. Miliband doesn’t seem like a particularly good suitor for the position of Prime Minister however, and ever since his election to the post of Labour Party leader, he’s seemed something of an odd fit, never really capitalising efficiently on the fumbles of the current coalition government.
From his questionable handling of the union crisis just a few weeks ago to his weak backing of the Yes to AV campaign, and not forgetting his confusing stance on tuition fees and lack of support to students during their own campaign last November and December, it appears that on most big issues, Miliband seems rather unequipped to deal with the big issues of the day, let alone the future. Should Ed Miliband become one of Labour’s own Iain Duncan-Smith’s of the teenage years of this century, where could Labour win back support like in the early Blair years in a potentially Murdoch-less Britain, or a highly dissolved British political Murdoch empire?
One area where they could garner support from voters would be to elect a leader with a regional accent. By doing this, the party could enter a new era of politics at the next general election to celebrate the change in politics that the events of the past week may bring in, by getting back in touch with the working class on a grand scale. The expenses scandal of 2009 made a lot of people lose sight of their local MP’s in amongst a harmful mist of expense abuse from the people who are meant to make the decisions for them. It could be said that confidence in Labour politicians is at an all time low having lost last year’s election and previous strategies of winning over the middle classes is just a myth. In order to bring back the left of the party, by bringing in a leader with a regional accent, the party could reaffirm their position as the party for the working classes, by ushering desperate changes to eradicate what’s left of New Labour and bring the party into 2011 and beyond by shifting the parties ideology more to the left of centre, again.
If the Labour Party were to enter into a general election today, with the cuts that the coalition have brought in or are in the process of bringing in, Cameron’s unwillingness to handle the NOTW scandal at first hand, the Lib Dems’ performance in the recent local elections and the cost of the uprising in Libya, it’s entirely possible that Miliband would win even a year after the public casted out Labour. If Miliband did win though, there doesn’t seem to be much evidence that things would change any more than under Gordon Brown’s leadership. In football terms, Miliband would be a Steve McClaren figure, not making effective changes after Sven Goran Eriksson managerial tenure and not getting the country to qualify for the European Championships. For example, Miliband’s stance on a tuition tax highlights his inability to make a definitive decision.
Of course there’s no evidence to suggest that a leader with a regional accent would be able to lead the Labour Party back to power or even make the changes that are needed to revolutionise the party. The fact of the matter is, this isn’t the mid 90′s and we haven’t experienced times like those under Margaret Thatcher in many years, but the time for the Labour Party does bear a similarity, they need a leader who can gather the support of all the party in order to fight to win the next election. The arguments on Tony Blair can rage for days, months and years but at the time, before the 1997 general election, he represented in some ways what the country wanted and needed, a powerful man who could reaffirm the left of the country the political power their desired whilst also pleasing the centre-left middle classes with the help of Rupert Murdoch. At the next election, though, who’s to say whether you’ll need Murdoch’s support to be leader of this country? It might take something as simple as a regional accent in order to gather the support as a leader that people can relate to, a man who represents them better than an RP-spouting Oxbridge graduate ever could. After years of reasons not to trust politicians, whether it be broken promises by the Liberal Democrats, the expenses scandal or Labour’s handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a man of the people leading the supposed party of the people, could bring some trust back to Westminster.
