Labour Women

LadyJ

I have recently found out that the labour party have a sort of sub group called "Labour Women". This was set up by the women of the labour party in order to help women get into ploitics and give them the confidence to speak out at meetings etc.

Recently,while at a labour party meeting,my aunt gave out about the existance of this group as she felt that,while the intentions were good,it was entirely unnecessary and quite sexist. I would be inclined to agree.

Afterall,if a woman wants to get into politics,imo,she will,same way as men who want to take part in politics will do it of their own accord. Are women so weak in this day and age that we need a crutch?

Perhaps,if it was a case that we didn't yet have the vote or something,then this kind of group might be justified but I just don't see the point of it today.

There is no such thing as "gay labour","disabled labour", "Ethnic minority labour" etc. etc. so why "Women's Labour"? Surely in a political party,members are all equal? Why should women feel the need to be singled out like this?

Time Magazine

Fine Gael have a similar scheme, called the Women's Group. Aren't they lovely?

I think it's good. People - particularly women - are not so rational as to choose to go into politics like that. Several factors interplay; social interaction for example. Women do not engage enough in the political system, and anything to encourage them is to be encouraged. They all have lovely bottoms, after all.

LadyJ wrote:

There is no such thing as "gay labour","disabled labour"

No, there's just Labour.

InFront

But if gay people, or disabled people, or ginger people, or anyone else who feels badly represented in society, being members of the party, wanted to start a committee with one another, what harm would there be?

I think this is a good thing not only for getting women into politics, but also recognising the long and interesting history that women have with the labour movement in Ireland.
I dont think this is patronising to them, nor Im sure do the women who comprise it.

lostexpectation

LadyJ wrote:

I have recently found out that the labour party have a sort of sub group called "Labour Women". This was set up by the women of the labour party in order to help women get into ploitics and give them the confidence to speak out at meetings etc.

Recently,while at a labour party meeting,my aunt gave out about the existance of this group as she felt that,while the intentions were good,it was entirely unnecessary and quite sexist. I would be inclined to agree.

Afterall,if a woman wants to get into politics,imo,she will,same way as men who want to take part in politics will do it of their own accord. Are women so weak in this day and age that we need a crutch?

Perhaps,if it was a case that we didn't yet have the vote or something,then this kind of group might be justified but I just don't see the point of it today.

There is no such thing as "gay labour","disabled labour", "Ethnic minority labour" etc. etc. so why "Women's Labour"? Surely in a political party,members are all equal? Why should women feel the need to be singled out like this?

you don't get over that many years of patriachy overnight... women still earn less then men, that's reason enough...

women are 50% of the pop, gay, disabled and minority are much less individualy, but im sure they have their own groupings.

LadyJ

TBH,my main problem with this is that the men aren't involved whatsoever in helping this group talk to women about politics etc.

Surely the whole party should be involved in such a movement and not just the women.

They also have workshops where they try to help the women from the party speak out more. Now,I understand that a lot of the time,perhaps the conversation can be dominated by men but there are some women who won't find it hard to speak out and some men who do.

Why not just have meetings for the people who are finding it difficult to express themselves so they can all benefit from it,and not just the women.

As I've already said,the intentions behind such a group are clearly good but I feel that everyone,including men,should participate in helping labour women feel more comfortable within the party.

bizmark

Im tell you right now for how ever long these special privileges exists for women i will never vote for one either admit your not as good as the top men and leave the running of the country to them or play with the same rule book.

Tbh

InFront

Special privileges like what? Surely all that Lady J has described is a focus froup for the furtherment of women's issues within the Labour Party, and a group of Labour women coiming together, to encourage women to join the party. What other special privileges do you come across?

It's like the student political parties recruiting from colleges and helping their membership with their developement. Whats the difference?

Im no expert on womens issues. but I cant see the problem with having a women's workshop within the Labour Party. I equally have no problem with the same being applied to gay people, people with disabilities, students, etc.

At the end of the day, it's the public that decide who gets to become a councillor or a member of the Oireachtas.
Members of the party who have been disproportionately badly represented in numbers, coming together to help in one another's professional development and the recruitment of new members, is hardly a big deal.
Membership of this group isnt compulsory. No woman would have to join it if she didnt want to.

metrovelvet

It smacks of voluntary segregation and also does two things: particularises the women in labour [ha ha no pun intended!] and also helps the men shut them out. Its another "drawing room."

I can understand a "strength in numbers" approach in that a collective voice is more audible than disparate ones but let's face it, we all know that's not going to happen.

The fact is politics is a mans game and if you want to be part of it then you have to learn to deal with men. As a woman you need to be twice as hard as any man to get half as far. Learning how to "speak out" with other women is not the same thing as learning to butt in and be firm among a group of men. I just dont see how this is going to benefit them in a practical way.

Calina

metrovelvet wrote:

The fact is politics is a mans game and if you want to be part of it then you have to learn to deal with men. As a woman you need to be twice as hard as any man to get half as far.

Actually, this annoys me for a couple of reasons. Firstly, politics in this country is so damn awful and our politicians are so...uhem, not great, that it's fair to say that if politics is a man's game, then men are bloody awful at it.

Secondly, your post seems to imply that instead of changing the political system to enable access to it to be equalised for half the population who are heavily marginalised by the fact that it's a man's game, women should learn to put up and shut up. If that had been the attitude forever and ever, we'd still be a feudal economy. Helpful.

I really don't care one way or the other what Labour women want to do - if they want to set up a group to hammer out things amongst themselves, I don't see why they shouldn't. Men do it on a golf course and no one bats an eyelid.

Oh and before anyone checks - no I am not a Labour member and I have never voted for them. And I'm unlikely to do so if Ivana Bacik is the best they can do.

metrovelvet

Not at all Calina. Believe me I dont think women should put up and shut up.

And yes the men are making a mess of politics. But the fact is, is that it is dominated by men - that is the reality of it. And in order to get anywhere in fields that are dominated by men,like finance, law and politics a woman has to bust her ass and get really tough because of the closed doors, the silencing, the games, the exclusions. Simply saying "its not fair" isnt going to cut it, because lets face it no one is going to just hand over privalege.

The only way to get access to that power its to enter that sphere, not to marginalise yourself from it.

Ok let them set up a group to hammer it out amongst themselves, but creating more splinter groups has never helped the left and it wont this time. Infiltration is a far more pragmatic approach then the drawing room one, imo.

I would agree that women, and Im sorry but Irish women especially need more training to speak up and stand up. [I dont specify Irish women to put them down specifically but moreso because of the Irish culture of silence and the status of women puts more pressure on them to keep shtum.] However, doing that amongst themselves is not going to prepare them to do this among men. What will prepare them is speaking up and over the male voice. How will they do this in a group of women who have problems speaking? That to me is like training for an olympic running match but practising by competing against turtles.

I want to see equalisation in political systems also, I just dont think this is the way of going about it.

Dirk Gently

metrovelvet wrote:

It smacks of voluntary segregation ....... I just dont see how this is going to benefit them in a practical way.

This reminds me of a little debate I had over on the Humanities forum a while ago. I was of the opinion that there should be greater integration between men and women but a woman was opposing me saying it was better for men and women to fight their own corner amongst their own sex and to exclude the other sex. I found her attitude puzzling, alot like the way you describe above. I suppose the advantage of Labour having a womens group within itself is that it could attract potential new women into the party if they see it as a comfort zone within what they might see as a mans world but apart from that it is of course best to work along side each other and see ourselves as individuals and not as a member of a sex.

I can’t remember the name of that woman who was promoting segregation but I agree with you anyway metrovelvet in the quote above.

metrovelvet wrote:

And yes the men are making a mess of politics.

obviously if we had a few more women in power the world would be a great little place. Women like Margret thatcher, Mary Harney, Winnie Mandela, condoleeza rice ......... I think policies and ideology is what makes politics good or bad, not having a greater number of men or women in control. Women can mess up just as often as men mess up. By all means there should be more participation in politics by women but hopefully they will bring good practice with them and not just girl power for the sake of it. I'd be happy to see every country in Europe have a female leader just so long as they have good policies.

LadyJ

I'm glad to see that some people can see where I'm coming from anyway.

It's encouraging.

metrovelvet

clown bag wrote:

This reminds me of a little debate I had over on the Humanities forum a while ago.

You were probably arguing with me. And it was probably about something in a different context.

Jackie laughlin

LadyJ, I'm not sure if we're talking about the same grouping but Labour has in the past had a Labour Womens's Council. Its pupose was/is to advance socialist feminism. There were male members and their support did not attract any comment.

There was also a Labour Youth Group, a Labour Teachers Organaisation, Labour Lawyers and there may have been others.

LadyJ

Jackie laughlin wrote:

LadyJ, I'm not sure if we're talking about the same grouping but Labour has in the past had a Labour Womens's Council. Its pupose was/is to advance socialist feminism. There were male members and their support did not attract any comment.

Pretty sure that this must be a different thing because as far as I know,this is a women only thing.

lostexpectation

LadyJ wrote:

Pretty sure that this must be a different thing because as far as I know,this is a women only thing.

the problem is ladyj if you can't see that women in Ireland are still not treated equally then whether there is a group for them isn't the problem.

The_Conductor

There are special groups like this all over the place. For example the PSEU union for lower management grades in the civil service hold special meetings to welcome new women members and advise them of the services of the union and how to participate as members (their reasoning being that 55% of their members are female, but only 45% of their branch officers are female......)

A man at the PSEU's annual delegate conference requested that similar meetings be made available for men, and was advised that this could not happen for equality reasons ( )

There is now a proposal that men be allowed to attend the welcome meetings for members. Meh- whats the problem, I, for one, do not see why there should be segregation of any manner- surely both sexes should be treated equally?

angeldelight

LadyJ wrote:

Pretty sure that this must be a different thing because as far as I know,this is a women only thing.

That's not correct. The Labour Women National Council is what people commonly refer to as "labour women". Its membership consists of every woman who joins the labour party (automatically) although not all women choose to be active in this side of things. Any man in the Labour party may be a delegate to the conference or the regular meetings of the Labour Women's Council at constituency or national level (in fact my father was for a number of years), as were many others. They work with the women for the following aim:

They want to promote a socialist feminist agenda and to increase and support the participation of women in national and local politics.

I don't think its existence should be seen as sexist. What should be seen as sexist is the fact that we have a very low level of female politic representatives compared to other European countries, and this group (both men and women) are working to try and correct the balance.

My mother was on their national executive committee for quite a long time as well as being on the Labour Party General Council..... so I do actually have some idea what I'm talking about

sceptre

angeldelight wrote:

I don't think its existence should be seen as sexist.

Of course it's sexist - only one sex can join. The question, if one exists, is whether it's undesirably sexist or not.

angeldelight

sceptre wrote:

Of course it's sexist - only one sex can join. The question, if one exists, is whether it's undesirably sexist or not.

No, men and women can attend and contribute to meetings and conferences. Men can also run for any of the officer positions at local and national levels, if they so wish.

LadyJ

My aunt and uncle are both members of the labour party and I was led to believe that (in our constituency anyway) this was run by women,for women and the men had no involvement.

Now,from what some people are saying,perhaps I've been misinformed. If men are getting actively involved then that,to me,makes a little more sense.

However,it seems to me that if women are automatically enrolled in this group,then men should be too. Why not just make everyone a member and then whoever wants to be active can be. If there is an issue within the party,then it should involve the lot of them. Just because it is an issue concerning women,doesn't mean that the men should be left to decide whether they care or not.

Jackie laughlin

LadyJ,
My understanding of the LWNC is that men have always been in a small minority but involved and casually accepted. Some constituencies would have liked to have a mixed gender delegation to the LWNC. Sometimes this wasn't possible because a male with sufficient commitment was not available. Sometimes an interested man didn't feel it right to oppose a woman who wanted to be a delegate. However, while delegates are limited, anyone can attend and be heard.

Zombrex

LadyJ wrote:

My aunt and uncle are both members of the labour party and I was led to believe that (in our constituency anyway) this was run by women,for women and the men had no involvement.

Any woman in the Labour party automatcially becomes a member of Labour Women. Any other member (ie men) can join if they wish)

LadyJ wrote:

If men are getting actively involved then that,to me,makes a little more sense.

Did you think the aim was to exclude men?

LadyJ wrote:

Why not just make everyone a member and then whoever wants to be active can be.

They are probably working on the assumption that the men of the Labour party aren't that bothered, so it would be rather pointless making them all automatic members since you would increase your membership but also increase your absence at things like executive voting. Most organisations like this have rules towards number of members required for a valid vote, for membership and such. If you over night increase your membership to a load of people who won't ever turn up to meetings you run the risk of having a series of invalid meetings and votes.

Any male member of the Labour party can join, but as far as I know they ain't falling over themselves to do so

LadyJ wrote:

Just because it is an issue concerning women,doesn't mean that the men should be left to decide whether they care or not.

They should be forced to care?

The reality is you can't make men make politics more inviting for women. Any time something like a quote system is mentioned their is uproar by males claiming that this is sexist (which it is).

A far fairer and better process is to let the women of a party work together as a unified force to make politics more inviting for women. This combats the pre-conception that politcis is a male dominated area

The reality is if the largely male Labour party were, in general, making their polices and politics acccessable and inviting to women this organisation wouldn't exist.

LadyJ

Wicknight wrote:

Did you think the aim was to exclude men?

No,but I think if a party is concerned about the lack of women in politics then the surely everyone should take part in helping them get involved.

They are probably working on the assumption that the men of the Labour party aren't that bother, so it would be rather pointless making them all automatic members since you would increase your membership but also increase your absence at things like executive voting.

Any male member of the Labour party can join, but as far as I know they ain't falling over themselves to do so


They should be forced to care?

It seems to me that if women are automatically made members then the women who don't get involved are going to be shunned,as my aunt certainly has been.

Whereas men have a choice of whether they wish to be a member or not and so there's not so much of a stigma attached to a man not getting involved.

Tbh,I think women shouldn't need a group like this but if there has to be one then everyone should be helping out.

This is just my opinion. I'm clearly in the minority but it's just what I think.

Zombrex

LadyJ wrote:

No,but I think if a party is concerned about the lack of women in politics then the surely everyone should take part in helping them get involved.

Of course everyone should but they don't, that is why groups like Labour Women exist. If everyone, meaning the males, had involved women in politics for the last few decades there wouldn't be the issue.

LadyJ wrote:

It seems to me that if women are automatically made members then the women who don't get involved are going to be shunned,as my aunt certainly has been.

Quite possibly, I would imagine there is a bit of the "why are you turning your pack on your own kind" mentality. That is a bit of a seperate issue though.

LadyJ wrote:

Tbh,I think women shouldn't need a group like this but if there has to be one then everyone should be helping out.

But isn't that the kind of attitude that is causing your aunt grief? That people should do this, should do that. And when your aunt doesn't she gets "shunned"

I think the answer to that problem is to remove the automatic membership for women, not extend the automatic membership to men. Only those intersted in a aparticular group should be members of it. Automatic membership, while having some pluses, becomes a bad idea if people make the same demands on those who are automatcially signed up as on those who commit themselves.