You’re comparing below-inflation increases in public spending with the disenfranchisement of 50% of the population.

Wow. Just, wow.

They ask: But where is the feminist frontline of the anti-cuts movement?

And yet in the previous para:

We are the frontline of feminism every day: when we politely but firmly tell our colleagues not to substitute our name with “gorgeous;” when we remove the scales from our bathrooms, wear what we want to and encourage others to do the same; when we take pride in childcare despite not personally possessing a vagina.

I’d assume that women are involved in the ‘frontline’ of the cuts, alongside the men, because the issue is more important than the ‘frontline’ of regarding comments or phrases that the authors regard as patronising or sexist, or the ‘frontline’ of weight-watching. As for ‘No union, well-meaning NGO or politician will fight this for us,’ presumably the women involved in trade union activism, NGOs or the Labour party don’t count (which will be news to Harriet Harman, who’s been arguing about how the cuts affect women for years).

If the ‘narrative’ about the cuts is appropriated by one group (and let’s face it, ‘Men Against the Cuts’ is never really going to fly), then it’s likely that the anti-cuts movement will splinter. A group like UK Uncut involves men and women collaborating in terms of strategy and tactics. If it involves a mass breast-feeding demo, then fine – but presumably the men will be asked to bring a bottle (as it were). In that sense women (whether feminist or not) along with men (whether feminist or not) or are ‘all in this together’.

“It is now up to us to remind people that the public sector workers we mention when we talk about job losses are mostly women.”

Some might ask: would it be less bad if it was mostly men losing such jobs?

When campaigning for equality, it’s helpful to avoid appearing to regard one group’s rights as being more important than another’s.

There are no holdout hippies standing naked in front of Parliament. There are no furious mothers breastfeeding their children in the middle of Oxford Street. There are no carried-away separatists hurling bricks through the windows of patriarchal (read: all) institutions.

Good. What would be the point if there were? I’m glad UK Feminista only interests a small minority. It’s a form of politics, but not very a good one I think.

[deleted for bad language]

And, obviously, most CTC & WTC are paid to women so,err….

We are the frontline of feminism every day: when we politely but firmly tell our colleagues not to substitute our name with “gorgeous;” when we remove the scales from our bathrooms, wear what we want to and encourage others to do the same; when we take pride in childcare despite not personally possessing a vagina.

I’m afraid I don’t understand this paragraph (probably because I’m male and therefore stupid). I presume you intend to say that you oppose sexist language: I fail to understand why it’s front-line feminism to object to another woman calling you “gorgeous” or “sweetie” or whatever. Of course no woman ever has or ever could possess a set of bathroom scales to check that her weight is healthy, thankyou for putting me right on that one. And of course feminism is all about getting other women to wear what you think they should. And what kind of woman doesn’t have a vagina? Ah, bingo! The goal of feminism is the abolition of gender difference in general, and reproductive organs in particular…

Of course I don’t actually think that any of that is what the authors meant to say. Indeed, I feel confident in asserting that it only got published because the duty editor was male and too scared to tell Mss Mirza and Kopcke to go away and write something that made sense.

I do like the comments below a feminism post. They vindicate my misanthropy.

It’s a real shame that so many of the commenters work so hard at missing the point. Tim Worstall goes so far as to quote Barbie… Presumably he was trying to make the authors of the piece look stupid. I think it backfired.

It is an outrage that this government is engaged in a war against the public sector. Once again, with feeling: these cuts are ideological.

The answer to the fight against the cuts is unions. End of. Women need to join unions and press those unions into going on a badly needed general strike. We will never achieve anything by acting as separate, individual agents. The Suffragettes formed a group and acted as one. We should do the same thing.

You’re comparing below-inflation increases in public spending with the disenfranchisement of 50% of the population.

Hey, as long as some ‘I don’t care about others’ libertarian on the internetz are fine, who cares? Let them eat cake!

I do like the comments below a feminism post. They vindicate my misanthropy.

Erm – I’m not sure how a few trolls who repeat themselves on every thread are indicative of the broader population?

@ 9 “It is an outrage that this government is engaged in a war against the public sector. Once again, with feeling: these cuts are ideological. ”

But that doesn’t seem to be the point of the post; it is making a point, if I am seeing it correctly, about the gender divide. But I don’t think it is going the right way, if it can’t see why overworked (male and female) coppers aren’t really interested in the self-absorbed whining of left-wing Fortnums smashers going on about something called “patriarchal institutions”, and echoing Ed Miliband’s awful comparison between the cuts protesters and the suffragettes and the American civil rights movement.

@10 You imply there that the welfare state is at its bare bones and the Government is picking at the carcass. Surely expenditure at 50% of GDP and still rising despite the cuts disprove that?

You also seem to imply anyone disagreeing with the OP is trolling. That’s not a helpful attitude conducive to debate, really.

“It is an outrage that this government is engaged in a war against the public sector. ”

That’s not what the authors were saying. They were saying it’s a war against women.

N’ I said that because more women work for the public sector then a war against the public sector is going to mean rising female unemployment.

“Tim Worstall goes so far as to quote Barbie… Presumably he was trying to make the authors of the piece look stupid. I think it backfired.”

You do that, I’ll stick with those horribly patriarchal, possibly even oppressive things called logic and evidence.

“Once again, with feeling: these cuts are ideological. ”

What horrors. At election time the voters are offered a choice of ideologies. The one that appeals to the most voters gets to implement said ideology. Strange system but we’ve a name for it: democracy.

Should I be having a fit of the vapours over the idea that a government elected on the ideology of firing civil servants fires civil servants or should I be celebrating that democracy is being done?

Or is that patriarchal again? Logic, facts?

“Erm – I’m not sure how a few trolls who repeat themselves on every thread are indicative of the broader population?”

Quite: that’s what we have elections for, remember?

@10 Yer not helping with the vindicating ya know 😛

@ 13 “logic” “facts” “evidence”

And yet you seem to be under the impression that elections offer “a choice of ideologies”.

If more women than men work in the public sector and the government is engaged in a war against the public sector, then the government is engaged in a war against women. That’s “logic”.

We could always believe in fairy tales and imagine that the government is attacking the public sector and “it just so happens that” more women than men work in the public sector and “whatchagonnado”.

From the article: “It is now up to us to remind people that the public sector workers we mention when we talk about job losses are mostly women.”

9. Mary Tracy: “It is an outrage that this government is engaged in a war against the public sector. Once again, with feeling: these cuts are ideological.”

Sounds like this is about playing the gender card for other political purposes.

I do object to this kind of abuse of the issue of gender, particularly as it’s the kind of thing that brings feminism into disrepute.

“And yet you seem to be under the impression that elections offer “a choice of ideologies”. ”

That does seem to be the basic motivation of this site, that the last time the populace were asked they chose the wrong ideology, yes.

“If more women than men work in the public sector and the government is engaged in a war against the public sector, then the government is engaged in a war against women. That’s “logic”.”

No, it’s not “logic”. Sorry, but it just ain’t.

A “war against women” would be “let’s fire all the women!”. A war against the public sector would be, well, a war against the public sector.

We can take this a stage further of course: as a recent post here showed there was, under Labour, a some 500,000 rise in the number of public sector workers. This, given the difference between male and female participation in each sector was obviously a war against men (those paying for it) in favour of women (those getting the paycheques).

You, as a feminist, one seeking equal but no more than equal treatment were of course against this, weren’t you?

Or do we have to invent Philosopher Barbie to point out that logic is hard?

“We could always believe in fairy tales and imagine that the government is attacking the public sector and “it just so happens that” more women than men work in the public sector and “whatchagonnado”.”

We could indeed but then that’s patriarchal logic for you. You know, “let’s shrink the public sector” is not equal to “let’s screw women over”?

@ Worstall You must be spending some serious quality time with “Philosopher Barbie”. You attempts at logic are so flawed they sound as if they were coming from a broken toy.

You would presumably agree that just because the West hasn’t come out openly and said “War Against Muslims” the West isn’t actually engaged in a war against Muslims? Are you so naive as to believe exactly what the government says? Perhaps you are. In which case it’s not fair for me to question the honour of those you trust.

I don’t remember saying that I was a “feminist” who “wants equal and no more than equal” treatment with men. Perhaps you got this information from Barbie. Or the Government. Definitely not from me. Sorry.

15. Mary Tracy: “If more women than men work in the public sector and the government is engaged in a war against the public sector, then the government is engaged in a war against women. That’s “logic”.”

No, that’s a logical fallacy. And a really obvious one, too.

Try this one: If the state is imprisoning many times more men than women, then the state is engaged in a war against men.

The prison population is about 95% male, 5% female. That’s 19 times as many men as women in prison. http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/prisons-and-probation/prison-population-figures/index.htm

Are we living under an oppressively misandric state? Or would that be another logical fallacy?

What would your position be if 95% of the prison population was female? What is your position given that 95% of the prison population is male?

@10

Erm – I’m not sure how a few trolls who repeat themselves on every thread are indicative of the broader population?

Is it trolling to find that you don’t care for the ”direct action” called for in this thread’s opening post? Or more generally don’t like the kind of politics highlighted in that film ”Just Do It”? I saw that at the cinema and thought it was silly beyond belief, but you keep promoting that stuff time after time. Is there no space on LC for criticism of that movement? Who wants to see naked hippies and mothers breastfeeding as some kind of political protest? Turning banks into creches is just a step up from that sillyness IMO.

Cylux @8, You call that feminism? It’s one kind of feminism only, and like with politics in general, there’s lots of different kinds.

You call that feminism? It’s one kind of feminism only, and like with politics in general, there’s lots of different kinds.

And yet regardless of what kind is on offer in the OP, they always seem to attract the same variety of comments underneath them.

What kind of feminism is this? All you’re doing is demanding that the (patriarchal) government look after you. If the main problem was women being dependent on men, why is it better for women to be dependent on the state? Don’t you want to stand on your own two feet?

You imply there that the welfare state is at its bare bones and the Government is picking at the carcass. Surely expenditure at 50% of GDP and still rising despite the cuts disprove that?

Just because the govt has kept spending on idiotic programmes such as Trident, defence spending etc doesn’t mean that deep cuts to legal aid, care centres and the NHS aren’t going to badly affect poor people, and women in particular.

So its a basic logic fail from you and most other libertarians on this thread.

damon: . Is there no space on LC for criticism of that movement?

there is – its just not very intelligent. You could always go to Spiked online to comment? Oh wait – I forgot – they don’t allow it. Still, there is always the Telegraph website.

Surely expenditure at 50% of GDP and still rising despite the cuts disprove that?

Might do if it were true, but it isn’t, nor has it ever been. You know that of course, you’ve just chosen to lie.

Historical spending rates according to the treasury – https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=phNtm3LmDZENC3I0s7AvHBQ

For future reference, reducing spending at a lesser rate than you kill the economy does not equal ‘increased spending’.

As someone who considers themselves a feminist, I don’t see how focusing on the women hit by unemployment the cuts helps.

Feminism is surely about fighting for equal rights for women, yet both men and women are losing their jobs due to the cuts.

Just campaigning about women and the cuts is going to alienate a lot of people.

It’s not like men who lose their jobs are being handed new ones by men in suits slurping beer while making sexist remarks, while women carry on being unemployed.

“Funny how some numbers get preferential treatment. Tucked away on the business pages of newspapers this week was a big one: the number of unemployed women in the UK is now the highest since 1988.”

You seem to be trying to imply that newspapers are trying to play down the effect of the cuts on women, but who cares what per cent of unemployed are women? It’s about trying to reduce the total number of unemployed, not fight to save all those who are women.

“You would presumably agree that just because the West hasn’t come out openly and said “War Against Muslims” the West isn’t actually engaged in a war against Muslims?”

Hmm. We’re not at war against Bangladesh, Morocco, Turkey, Niger, Mali, Saudi Arabia….hmm, there seem to be an awful lot of Muslim or majority Mulism states that we’re not at war against.

So, I think I’ll conclude that we’re not at war against “Muslims” then.

Dang that male evidence and logic thing again!

Sunny @ 23:

“Just because the govt has kept spending on idiotic programmes such as Trident, defence spending etc”

Erm, I’m not sure where you get the idea that the government has cut spending on Defence:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570593

Or indeed why you think it’s “idiotic”, given that we’re currently engaged in two wars.

Do you have any actual examples of idiot programmes which the government isn’t going to cut?

*hasn’t cut spending on defence

If more women than men work in the public sector and the government is engaged in a war against the public sector, then the government is engaged in a war against women. That’s “logic”.

We could always believe in fairy tales and imagine that the government is attacking the public sector and “it just so happens that” more women than men work in the public sector and “whatchagonnado”.

By the same ‘logic’, the public sector is institutionally sexist – against men, and for women.

Sunny

there is – its just not very intelligent.

I get the idea that it’s not welcome, or that people who would constructively criticise don’t reply here, because it doesn’t seem to be a forum where such debate takes place.
I cannot believe that there are not loads of people who also think the some of the actions of UK Uncut have been cringeworthy. The Top Shop occupation in Oxford Street for example. It’s there on Youtube.

You could always go to Spiked online to comment? Oh wait – I forgot – they don’t allow it. Still, there is always the Telegraph website.

I was talking about LC.
I see Spiked as just something to use as a resource, and to pick through it looking for any good stuff. It can challenge tired old assumptions I find. The EDL and the EMA grant being just two.

If LC wants to be a place that attracts people who will just support the direct action and stunts that are promoted here as a matter of course, that’s fair enough. But it will end up sounding like the people in the ”Just Do It” film. And that’s not good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zavTd31qxho

Richard:

You seem to be trying to imply that newspapers are trying to play down the effect of the cuts on women, but who cares what per cent of unemployed are women? It’s about trying to reduce the total number of unemployed, not fight to save all those who are women

I care inasmuch that the data on female unemployment is a subset of the main figures, just as youth unemployment is. The problem is in the interpretation, and in the response. LC recently posted ‘Unemployment rises: affects women more’ without any serious explanation as to why it was happening, or why the headline figure ‘ought’ to have been lower than it was. Perhaps it’s not surprising that some kind of ‘war on women’ narrative ends up filling the gap (even though it goes back nearly 20 years to Susan Faludi’s Backlash) because it’s either a ‘way in’ for feminist activists or because it keeps things nice and simple – hence Simon’s charge of a logical fallacy.

Incidentally, there’s a debate to be had about the merits (or otherwise) of direct action (by women or men) but that’s a separate issue the article (which is more about rallying the troops than providing analysis or policy) handles rather awkwardly in my view.

‘No union, well-meaning NGO or politician will fight this for us.’

What you need is a trade union, something like the PCS only for public sector workers.

Oh.

I actually made this argument a when New Labour were carrying out attacks on the public sector: attacks on public sector pay, employment or pensions is, intended or not, an attack on the women who make up a disproportionately large part of that sector.

You can bet the State will more likely retreat on cuts to the largely male police force than on the predominantly female civil service.

damon: I cannot believe that there are not loads of people who also think the some of the actions of UK Uncut have been cringeworthy.

Actually it had widespread support. If you search this site for polls on UKuncut – you’ll find a big majority of the public supported their campaigns. I don’t really see you as a barometer of opinion on the issue given you constantly spout Spiked.

Erm, I’m not sure where you get the idea that the government hasn’t cut spending on Defence:

Cuts to defence spending have been drastically lower than other areas. THAT is the point.

Actually it had widespread support. If you search this site for polls on UKuncut – you’ll find a big majority of the public supported their campaigns

Really? I’m sure it depends on the questions you put to people.

Ask them to watch this Youtube video of the Topshop demnostrations and I think you’d have more varied answers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffYlE0lLBbI

But the questions would have to be about the protests themselves and whether they would join such a protest. And did they mind the protesters using up so many police resources and being quick to shout about police brutality etc and using the civil disobedience tatics for resisting arrest and removal?

Sure people will agree with the general point of tax evasion, but these childish ”Just Do It” politics and direct action tactics deter more people from getting involved than they encourage I would say.
But it’s precisely that point that never gets discussed. It will just get dismissed as trolling.
To me, that is the biggest problem this movement has. The lack of introspection and ability to see themselves as others might. I know so many people who would just roll their eyes at such political action.
But you’ve made it more than clear that LC is not the place for that discussion.

@ 33:

“Cuts to defence spending have been drastically lower than other areas.”

They’re lower than in some areas, but at 8%, they’re higher than the cuts made to, e.g., the Justice Department (6%), International Development (budget increasing by £11bn), the NHS (spending ringfenced) and Education (1%). Besides, you haven’t explained why, given that we’re still fighting in Afghanistan (and now Libya as well), and the armed forces didn’t have enough resources even before the cuts, maintaining Defence spending is an “idiotic” thing it do.

@ Mary Tracy

“The answer to the fight against the cuts is unions. End of. Women need to join unions and press those unions into going on a badly needed general strike. We will never achieve anything by acting as separate, individual agents. The Suffragettes formed a group and acted as one. We should do the same thing.”

I was going to post something but saw Mary Tracy’s comment and felt I didn’t need to any more.

One thing I will say about the Feminista event is the lack of trade union involvement and there are a fair few number of trade union women activists out there. A woman’s place is in the trade union movement!!

@HarpyMarx Agreed!

[deleted for bad language]

Eh?

Could the editor remind me of

a) what I said and

b) Which part of it was bad language so that I know not to do so again?

There are, after all, various definitions of “bad language” and I tend not to drop F words and C words around ehre. So what is the “bad language” that I used?

Or are we in the Murphy sense of bad language here: “expressions I do not agree with”?